Medical therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Medical Therapy for Gastroesophageal keflux Disease- - DAVID A. JOHNSON, M.D., Norfolk virg,na

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a ubiquitous problem, although therapeutic options continue to evolve. Effective therapy balls for understanding the pathogenesis. Key factors associated with GERD include incompetence of the lower esophageal sphincter, esophageal clearance, gastric contents, tissue resistance, and potency of the refluxate. Phase-type directed therapy remains the best treatment approach and histamine (H&receptor antagonists are now the cornerstone of therapy for patients not responsive to conservative measures. In a subset of patients with severe esophagitis who do not respond to conventional Hz-receptor antagonist therapy, effl- cacy has been demonstrated with high-dose therapy. The acid suppressant omeprazole, highly effective in erosive esophagitis, is the drug of choice for esophagitis resistant to Hz- receptor antagonists. Despite effective forms of therapy, relapse rates are high in patients with severe GERD, and maintenance therapy typi- cally is required. With near uniformity, efficacy end points for these agents have been directed toward relief of heartburn, regurgitation, and dyspepsia. Few data exist correlating relief of GERD and improvement of chest pain. Although therapeutic strategies for treating GERD have improved, empiric treatment of suspected GERD in the patient with noncar- disc chest pain does not appear to be the opti- mal approach and should be reserved for cases where diagnostic testing is limited or unavail- able.

G astroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a problem seen by physicians in all specialties,

is best defined by including symptoms and/or evidence of tissue damage resulting from reflux of gastric contents. Symptoms of GERD may include chest pain. Histamine-2 (H&receptor antagonist therapy is a cornerstone for effective management of GERD symptoms. Treatment regimens have been modified by increasing standard closes of HZ- receptor antagonists, aclministering combination therapies, and by administering more potent acicl- suppressive drugs, such as omeprazole. The concli- tion is frequently chronic, and long-term therapy may be problematic. This article will review vari- ous available treatment options for the short- ancl long-term management of patients with GERD, including a brief discussion of meclical therapy in patients with possible GERD-induced chest pain.

PATHOGENESIS Gastroesophageal reflux clisease is not caused by

a single abnormality; rather, it is a multifactorial process, wherein different abnormalities may pre- clominate in a given patient [l-5]. The factors that determine the clegree of reflus injury include struc- tural integrity of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), volume of the gastric reflusate, potency of gastric or gastrocluoclenal refluxate, efficiency of gastroesophageal clearance, and esophageal epithelial resistance and restorative repair capabilities.

Anatomic Integrity

From the Department of Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology Division, Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, Virginia.

tive and Liver Diseases, Suite 106, 844 Kempsville Road, Norfolk, Virginia

The integrity of the esophagogastric junction remains the primary cleterminant in gastroesophageal reflux. Several mechanisms of gastroesophageal acid reflux have been observecl during concomitant monitoring of the LES [l]. First, spontaneous reflux is associated with transient relaxation of the LES. This abrupt relaxation can follow, periocls of normal-to-high resting LES pressure and may also be evident during periods of low resting LES tone. This is the primary pattern of reflux episodes in normal subjects. Second, stress-inclucecl reflux hap- pens when intra-abclominal pressure transiently overcomes the LES resting tone. This is likely the mechanism for reflux with straining, squatting, or stooping maneuvers. Finally, free gastroesophageal reflux is evident when resting LES tone is

5A-88S May 27, 1992 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 92 (suppi 54

equal to or only a few millimeters of pressure above the intragastric pressure [2].

The somewhat confusing pathogenic relationship between a sliding hiatus hernia and esophagitis is now better defined. The consensus is that most patients with moderate-to-severe esophagitis have a hiatal hernia, although the converse that a majority of individuals with a sliding hiatal hernia do not have reflux disease is also well established [5]. Re- cent studies suggest that a hiatal hernia acts to impair refluxate clearance and may, thereby, augment mucosal contact time and sustained contact- related injury [G].

Gastric Volume Increased volume of gastric fluid also increases

the rate of noncleglutitive LES relasations. Some authors report that delayed gastric emptying and its consequence, increased gastric volume, may be a major factor in GERD [7], although others clis- agree [8,9]. More recent evidence suggests the presence of a hypersecretory state in some patients with GERD, particularly those unresponsive to standard closes of Hz-antagonist receptor therapy, such as patients with Barrett’s esophagus [lO,ll]. The initial report by Collen et nl [lo] showed that 10 of 12 patients who clid not respond to standard doses of raniticline had Barrett’s epithelium, compared with only one patient in the initial treatment response group. In a larger group of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, 36% had gastric acid hypersecretion [12].

Refluxate Potency The effect of reflux-induced epithelial change

depends in part on the potency of the refluxate. Hydrochloric acid alone may cause esophageal injury by protein clenaturization, but pepsin is the major constituent of the gastric pool responsible for esophageal injury [2]. Other components of the gastric refluxate that may contribute to esophageal injury include pancreatic enzymes and bile acicls [13- 171.

Esophageal Clearance Decreased esophageal clearance increases the

duration of esophageal exposure to the noxious refluxate. Esophageal acid clearance occurs as a two-step process [2,18]: Esophageal peristaltic motor activity clears a volume of refluxate from the esophagus, and the residual acid then is neutralizecl by swallowed saliva. Normal peristalsis is ex- tremely effective for volume clearance. However, esophageal peristaltic amplitude and frequency may be impaired in GERD [19]. In patients with severe relapsing esophagitis, decreased peristaltic

amplitude in the distal esophagus ancl failed peristalsis may be continuing problems not improved with healing of the esophagitis [19,20].

Tissue Resistance Epithelial injury is a consequence of contact with

the refluxate. The capacity to withstand injury and repair ancl maintain tissue following injury is influ- enced by age and nutritional status, among other factors. When a hydrogen ion penetrates the pre- epithelial defense, several other epithelial defenses must be overcome before injury will occur [21,22]. The relationship of these processes to GERD is not well understood.

MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT

Conservative Therapy The primary goals of therapy for GERD are to

eliminate symptoms ancl prevent complications. Conservative therapy appears to relieve reflux symptoms and is explored before embarking on more complicated and systemic therapies [23]. Die- tary modification ancl weight loss, as well as head- of-bed elevation with bed blocks or a bed wedge [24], may be effective. In patients with severe peptic esophagitis [251, sleeping with the head of the bed elevated complements pharmacologic therapy. Smoking cessation is perhaps not as critical as previously suggested [26]. The mechanism for smoking-inclucecl reflux appears to be largely due to increased spontaneous esophageal sphincter relaxa- tions [27]. Alcohol climinishes the amplitude of the LES, peristaltic waves, and frequency of contrac- tion [28,29]. Prolonged supine reflux does occur, particularly with nocturnal ingestion of alcohol followed by recumbency [30].

There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of alginic acicl in gastroesophageal reflux therapy. An alginic raft formecl on top of a gastric pool potentially is a very effective antireflux barrier [31- 331. Alginic acid-containing antacid preparations may well be considerecl the initial drug of choice in treating pregnant women with reflux symptoms c321.

H2-Receptor Antagonists Hz-Receptor antagonists are the “gold stanclarcl”

for the medical therapy of gastroesophageal reflux, as has been demonstrated in many comparative trials, both with placebo and with alternative therapies [34-531. Cimetidine, ranitidine, nizatidine, and famotidine are currently approved as therapy for GERD.

The level of acid suppression for later Hz-receptor antagonists such as famotidine, nizatidine, etin- tidine, and roxatidine is similar to that of ranitidine

SYMPOSIUM ON UNEXPLAINED CHEST PAIN I JOHNSON

May 27, 1992 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 92 (suppl 5A) 5A-89s

SYMPOSIUM ON UNEXPLAINED CHEST PAIN/JOHNSON

and cimetidine, although published studies are in- sufficient for a full evaluation [34]. Placebo- controlled studies with cimetidine [35-411, ranitidine [42-481, famotidine [49-511, and nizatidine [52,53] show essentially no statistically significant differences among agents in the treatment of GERD. Figure 1 illustrates schematically the similar efficacy among Ha-receptor antagonists. Pooled analysis of 51 controlled, double-blind trials clearly shows that Hz antagonists are superior to placebo, both in relieving typical GERD symptoms and in healing esophagitis [541.

The efficacy of these agents is weighted by the duration of therapy (6,8, or 12 weeks) as well as the severity of mucosal involvement at the initiation of treatment [55]. Mean endoscopic healing rates from selected patient groups with mild esophagitis are 65-70% at 6 weeks, increasing to 80-90% after 12 weeks. Comparative healing rates for moderate esophagitis are 40-45% and 60-65%, respectively, and for severe reflux esophagitis, 20-30% and 30- 50%. Symptomatic improvement is much higher overall, even in severe reflux esophagitis, illustrat- ing that symptomatic improvement does not paral- lel endoscopic improvement.

Recently, higher doses of Ha-receptor antagonists have been used in some patients to promote healing, particularly of erosive esophagitis [56]. In one study, there was a clear advantage for ranitidine 300 mg q.i.d. over ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. in patients with grades 2 and 3 esophagitis [57]. In the high-close group, complete endoscopic healing of esophagitis occurred in 75% of patients after 8 weeks of treatment compared with 54% of those

treatecl with the conventional regimen. The results for symptomatic relief were also significantly clif- ferent: 84% ancl 64%, respectively.

A dose-ranging stcicly of patients with reflux esophagitis treated with famoticline founcl that the percent total reflux time with pH <4 was lower with famoticline 40 mg twice daily than with 20 mg twice daily or 40 mg at bedtime [58], inclicating that better results are achieved by greater suppression of acid secretion. High-close regimens are expen- sive, however, ancl 25-30% of patients clo not respond [55]. Prolonging high-dose therapy from 4 to 8 weeks increases healing and symptom relief to a limited extent (from 67% to 84%) [55].

Sucralfate Sucralfate has a potential advantage in that it

inhibits pepsin as well as absorbing bile salts, thereby inactivating them [59]. Furthermore, pretreatment with sucralfate decreasecl mucosal per- meability ancl, consequently, esophagitis in rabbits [60,61]. Human stuclies have demonstrated that sucralfate may be superior to placebo in reflux esophagitis [62,63]. Other studies have shown efficacy comparable with that of antacicls [64] and Ha- receptor antagonists [65-701, although one study has not [71]. Results of sucralfate trials are shown in Figure 2 [63,65,68-731.

Prokinetic Agents The use of prokinetic agents, which increase LES

tone and stimulate gastric emptying, is appealing in that management is directed towarcl unclerlying factors that play a role in the pathogenesis of

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Placebo Nizatidine Cimetidine Famotidine Ranitidine Omeprazole

300-690 mg/d 800-1600 mg/d 4@80 mg/d 300-1200 mg/d 20-60 mg/d

Figure 1. Schematic summary of placebocontrolled, dose-ranging trials contrasting efficacies of H,receptor antagonists and omeprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Trials measured complete endoscopic healing at 6-8 weeks of therapy.

5A-90s May 27, 1992 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 92 (suppl 5A)


GERD. A profile of the trials to date using prokinetics is shown in Figure 3 [74-821.

BETHANECHOL: Cholinergic agonists, in particular bethanechol, have been evaluated as a treatment for GERD. Bethanechol increases LES pressure and esophageal clearance, but it cloes not augment gastric emptying. Furthermore, bethanechol has a negative effect in that it stimulates gastric acid secretion and may decrease esophageal acid clearance. Results of efficacy studies in GERD have been conflicting [78,83,84]. Overall, bethanechol was not well toleratecl; side effects (abdominal

cramps, diarrhea, urinary frequency, and blurred vision) limited acceptance of treatment.

METOCLOPRAMIDE: Metoclopramicle is a procain- amide derivative that increases LES pressure and amplitude of esophageal contractions, as well as accelerates gastric emptying in retention states [85,86]. Metoclopramicle not only stimulates the gastrointestinal smooth muscle but also coordinates gastric, pyloric, and duodenal motor activity, resulting in a net aboral movement. This clifferenti- ates the resultant action from the nonspecific cholinergic effects of bethanechol and explains the ob-

Figure 2. Summary of trials of sucralfate in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Numbers in brackets indicate source of data. Cim = cimetidine; fam = famotidine: ran = ranitidine; suer = sucralfate.

Figure 3. Summary of trials of prokinetic agents alone or compared with H,receptor antagonists in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux dis ease. Numbers in brackets indicate source of data. Seth = bethanechol; cis = cisapride; dom = domperidone; meto = metoclopramide; other abbreviations as in Figure 2.

4 100 -

$ go- cp 80.

; 70-


served differences in efficacy between the two drugs [87]. Efficacy data in GERD are mised, with .some studies showing benefit [74,821 while another showed no difference from placebo [751. The major limiting factor of metoclopramicle is its i:elatively high side-effect profile [S51.

DOMPER~DONE: Dompericlone is a peripheral clo- pamine antagonist that, in contrast to metoclopramide, has no central nervous system effects, thereby improving its side-effect profile consicler- ably. Dompericlone’s prokinetic and gastric effects and its ability to augment gastric emptying have beeli i&l1 documented [75,58], although overall results in GERD have been negative in well- cdntrollecl studies [79,89-921. Studies suggest that the primary effect of clompericlone in patients with reflux esophagitis may be to improve gastric emptying rathbr than esophageal motility. Accordingly, it does not have a role in the primary management of most patients with GERD 1931.

CISAPRIDE: Cisapricle has no anticlopaminergic action. It improves propulsive activity of the esophagus, stomach, and small and large bowel and aug- ments esophageal peristalsis, LES tone, and gastric emptying [94]. Cisapride increases LES pressure and decreases reflus [95-991. Cisapricle therapy compares favorably with metoclopramicle [7G] and HZ-antagonists [77,501. Overall, cisapricle appears to be effective in the treatment of reflus clisease, although its efficacy appears greatest in mild disease [loo, 1011.

ERYTHROMYCIN: Erythromycin, a potent prokinetic agent, mimics the effect of the gastrointestinal polypepticle motilin on gastrointestinal motility. Controlled trials of acute therapy with a 4-week follow-up have demonstrated benefit in gastric emptying with corresponding symptomatic improvement [ 1021. One preliminary report that evaluated its potential use in GERD found that erythromycin did not significantly improve acid exposure time ancl heartburn episodes, although there was a strong tendency for clecreasecl cluration of reflux episodes [103]. Further stuclies are neeclecl to ascer- tain its effectiveness and appropriate close, as well as its potential long-term use in reflux patients.

Omeprazole Omeprazole, a substituted benzimidazole, inhib-

its the gastric parietal cell proton pump, blocking the final common step in luminal acid secretion [1041, and is approved for short-term use in gracle 2 or greater esophagitis. Placebo-controlled trials [105,106] and trials comparing omeprazole with either cimeticline [107] or raniticline [108-1121 show an advantage for omeprazole in symptom relief and endoscopic healing. None of the omeprazole trials

have used relief of GERD-induced chest pain as a symptom goal.

In controlled randomized trials, esophagitis was healed in 57-74% of patients after 4 weeks of omeprazole therapy and in 78-97% after 8 weeks; comparable rates in patients treated with H,-receptor antagonists are 27-43% and 28-5G%, respectively (Figure 1). Meta-analysis demonstrates a 35- 40% therapeutic advantage in favor of omeprazole after both 4 ancl8 weeks of therapy [1131. In studies that stratified patients according to grades of esophagitis, omeptiazole has a greater advantage in patients with more severe disease [1131.

Omeprazole is effective for the treatment of patients with resistant esophagitis, even after long- term, high-close HZ-receptor-antagonist treatment [ 112,114-1231. Healing of refractory ulcers, particularly in Barrett’s esophagus, appears possible with omeprazole [122], which may reflect the higher prevalence of acid hypersecretion in patients with Barrett’s esophagus [12]. Reports from Euro- pean trials indicate that 10% of patients with severe esophagitis treated with omeprazole will not heal, even with high closes [123,1241; therefore, other pathophysiologic factors, in addition to acicl reflux, are important in esophagitis [ 1251. The concomitant use of medication that is potentially caustic to the esophagus, such as nonsteroiclal anti-inflammatory clrugs (NSAIDs), may be of particular concern. However, the trials reporting omeprazole resistance did not evaluate this.

The main safety issue with omeprazole has been its ability to produce hypergastrinemia and gastric carcinoicl tumors in rats and the consequent impli- cations for humans. Data suggest that short-term omeprazole therapy is safe, although it produces slight hypergastrinemia [ 113,126,127].

Combination Treatment If standard single-drug therapies are not effec-

tive, combination therapy with an acid-suppressive agent and a motility agent may be more effective. This approach seems logical in patients with clocu- mentecl abnormal gastroesophageal motor function. Trials supporting this premise inclucle evaluations of the use of He-receptor antagonists combined with metoclopramicle [128], clompericlone [129], or cisapride [1301. Carbenoxolone/antacicl am1 an alginate preparation were more effective in patients failing routine management with antacids [131]; cimetidine and an alginate/antacid were more effective than either preparation alone [132]; and sucralfate combined with cimetidine is more effective than cimeticline alone [73]. A profile of the combination therapy trials to date is shown in Figure 4 [73,90,128-1321.


5A-92s May 27. 1992 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 92 (SUPPI 5A)


MAINTENANCE THERAPY Reflux disease is generally a chronic condition.

Patients with reflux esophagitis tend to relapse after discontinuing treatment, regardless of the therapeutic agent usecl [105,133-1381. There are few data regarding maintenance therapy. In a l-year study of patients with GERD in symptomatic remission, the cumulative protective effect of cimetidine with a twice-daily regimen (70%) was numerically greater than a bedtime (54%) or placebo (60%) regimen [136]. Maintenance therapy with ranitidine twice daily is effective, but there is no difference between placebo and bedtime dosing of ranitidine [ 1381.

Studies of continued treatment with cimetidine plus metoclopramide [135] or cisapricle alone [ 139,140] suggest efficacy in preventing relapse. Data on maintenance treatment with omeprazole are emerging [117,141,142]. While the use of omeprazole emphasizes the importance of long- term potent acid inhibition for treating complex resistant esophagitis, careful surveillance of its safety profile remains obligatory [113]. Concern over the proliferative effects of hypergastrinemia remains. Recent data suggest that the volume of argyrophilic cells in the oxyntic mucosa increases with chronic omeprazole therapy; however, no clys- plasia of gastric and argyrophilic cells was seen during maintenance therapy for l-5 years [142]. A profile of the trials evaluating maintenance therapy in GERD is shown in Figure 5 [115,117- 119,133,139,141].

Overall, it appears that patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux will require continuous

therapy. It seems most reasonable to achieve early symptomatic relief with either high-dose Ha-antagonist therapy or omeprazole, followed by twice- daily maintenance therapy with Hz blockers. Peri- odically, patients may need a more potent acid- suppressive regimen. Combination therapy with prokinetic agents may be advantageous in selected patients. There is some concern, however, that severe relapsing esophagitis results in a residual esophageal peristaltic dysfunction in patients [143,144]. Conceivably, allowing patients to relapse repeatedly may lead to progressive dysfunction of the esophageal acid clearance mechanism, which may further aggravate the problem. For this rea- son, evaluation for antireflux surgery should be considered in selected patients.

MEDICAL THERAPY FOR GERD-INDUCED CHEST PAIN

Data from patients with GERD-induced chest pain are limited either with regard to overall resolution of symptoms or time to symptom relief. One recent study suggests that relief of heartburn or endoscopic healing of esophagitis can be used to predict relief of GERD-induced chest pain [65]. Overall symptomatic relief of heartburn, regurgitation, and chest pain in response to ranitidine was 40%, 72%, and 33%, respectively, and endoscopic healing occurred in 31%. However, the authors did not indicate if symptomatic improvement ‘corre- lated predictably in each patient. In patients with GERD-related chest pain who were treated with sucralfate, complete symptomatic relief of heartburn, acid regurgitation, ancl chest pain was re-

Figure 4. Summary of trials of combination therapy in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux

disease. Vertical axis represents percentage of patients with symptomatic relief at 6-8 weeks

of therapy. Numbers in brackets indicate source of data. Alg = alginate; carb = carbenoxolone; other abbreviations as in Figures 2 and 3.

&J 8! g 70 -= 2 60

3 50

$ 4o 30

20

10

0 (1321 [128] [131] 11301 11291 1901 I731

S$ y$ OP, p

0 33 Q 238 2=3

-g-s 3

$0 Q3

+ * 4 + 4 + z 3 la % t 6 2. 8 z 0

3 * 3



TABLE I

Advantages and Disadvantages of Empiric Therapy in Patients with Noncardiac Chest Pain

Advantages

Cost (inftial)

Limited availability of testing

“Simple” therapy

Side effects of testing

Disadvantages ’

Delay to diagnosis Recurrent evaluations Placebo effect Drug costs Specialist’s role: need for rapid diagnosis

Difficult for patient to adhere to dietary/mechanical measures without a diagnosis

Side effects of therapy

ported in 34%, 6’7%, and 67%, respectively, and endoscopic healing occurred in 47% [65]. Data on the intrapatient correlation of symptom relief and healing were not supplied. Hence, it appears that endoscopic healing may not be required for relief of chest pain.

If therapy for GERD is available and if GERD is the most common treatable gastrointestinal cause of unexplained chest pain, is-there a role for empiric therapy in patients with unexplained chest pain? The advantages and disadvantages of empiric therapy are listed in Table I. The potential savings in cost for drugs over procedural testing may not be recognized if high-dose Ha-antagonist or

omeprazole therapy is required over several weeks to achieve symptom relief. Furthermore, with a high placebo response rate, predictably 25-30% with Hz antagonists but lower with omeprazole, it may be unclear whether the initial response was due to effective treatment of the pathologic process. Thus, how does one treat symptom relapse after a course of empiric therapy? In addition, con- sultants may be justified in performing direct testing initially, particularly those in tertiary referral centers who may have only a short evaluation pe- riod because patients live far away.

Overall, it is clear that we have more questions than answers with respect to the treatment of GERD and symptomatic improvement of chest pain. Because of the previously cited shortcomings of the reflux trials conducted to date, physicians are at a disadvantage for predicting symptom response to medical therapy-both initial and long-term treatment. Conceivably, the current initial approach of diagnostic testing may be modified to favor high-dose empiric therapy. Controlled trials to answer these questions are under way. For the present, it seems most reasonable to define the disease by directed testing. Selection of appropriate medical therapy is guided by current data on relief of the more typical symptoms of GERD and healing of esophagitis. Resolution of the issues related to

r#J loo-

g go-

r" 80-

2 70-

& 60-

3 50-

Figure 5. Summary of trials of maintenance therapy in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Numbers in brackets indicate source of data. Omep = omeprazole; other ab. breviations as in Figures 2-4.

5A-$ts May 27, 1992 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 92 (suppl 5A)

GERD therapy and chest-pain response await col- lection of scientific data from controlled trials.

“‘I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has the data. Inselasibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit -facts.” Sherlock Holmes in “A Scandal in Bohemia”

REFERENCES 1. Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ, Helm JF. Dent J. Pathogenesis of reflux esophagitis. Gastro- enterology 1981; 81: 376-81.

2 Dodds WJ, Dent J. Hogan WJ, et al. Mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux in

patients with reflux esophagitis. N Engl J Med 1982; 308: 1547-52. 3. Navab F, Textor EC. Gastroesophageal reflux: pathophysiologic concepts. Arch

Intern Med 1985: 145: 329-33.

4. Richter JE. Castell DO. Gastroesophageal reflux: pathogenesrs. diagnosis, and therapy. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97: 93-103.

5. Johnson LF, DeMeester TR, Haggett RC. Esophageal epithelial response to gas-

troesophageal reflux: a quantitative study. Am J Dig Dis 197P: 23: 498-509. 6. Mittal RK. Lang RC, McCallum RW. Identification of mechanism of delayed esoph-

ageal acid clearance in subjects wrth hiatus hernia. Gastroenterology 1987; 92:

130-4. 7. McCallum RW, Birkowitz DM, Lerner E. Gastric emptying in patients with gastro-

esophageal reflux. Gastroenterology 1981; 80: 285-9.

8. Shay S. Egg11 D, Van Nostrand D, et al. Gastric emptying of food in patients with gastroesophageal reflux. Gastroenterology 1987; 92: 459-65.

9. Johnson DA, Winters C, Drave WE, eta/. Solid phase gastric emptymg in Barrett’s

esophagus. Dig Dis Scr 1986: 31: 217-20. 10. Collen MJ, Lewis JH, Benjamin SB. Gastric acid hypersecretion and refractory

gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 1990; 98: 654-61.

11. Barlow AP, DeMeester TM, Ball CS. Eypasch EP. The significance of gastric secretory state in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Arch Surg 1989; 124: 937-40.

12. Collen MJ, Johnson DA. Correlabon between basal acrd output and daily raniti-

dine dose required for therapy in Barrett’s esophagus. Dig Dis Sci 1992; In press. 13. Harmon JW, Johnson LF, Maydonovitch CL. Effects of acid and bile salts under

rapid esophageal mucosa. Dig Dis Sci 1981; 26: 65-9.

14. Gilleson EW, DeCastro VAM, Nyhus LM, Kusakari K, Bombeck CT. The signifi. cance of bile in reflux esophagrtis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1972; 134: 419-22.

15. Schweitzer EG, Harmon JW, Bass EL. Baetzri S. Bile acid reflux precedes muco-

sal barrier disruption in the rabbit esophagus. Am J Physrol 1984; 247: G480. 16. Dubois A. Clinical relevance of gastroduodenal dysfunction in reflux esophagitis.

J Clin Gastroenterol 1986; 8: 17-25. 17. Waring JD, Legrand J. Chinichan A, Sanowski RA. Duodenogastnc reflux in pa-

tients with Barrett’s esophagus. Dig Dis SCI 1990; 35: 759-62.

18. Helm JF. Dodds WJ. Hogan WJ. et al. Acid neutralizing capacity of human saliva.

Gastroenterology 1982; 83: 69-73. 19. Katz PO, Knuff TE, Benjamin SB. ef a/. Abnormal esophageal pressures in reflux

esophagitis: cause or effect? Am J Gastroenterol 1986; 81: 744-6.

20. Howard TM, Frei JV, Flowers M, et al. Omeprazole heals esophagitis but does no! improve abnormal motility in reflux esophagitis [Abstract]. Gastroenterology

1990; 98: A61. 21. Orlando RC. Esophageakepithelial resistance. J Clin Gastroenterol 1986; 8: 12-

9.

22. Orlando RC, Powell DW. Bryson JC, et al. Esophageal potential difference mea- sure in esophageal disease. Gastroenterology 1982; 83: 1026-32.

23. Kitchin LI, Castell DO. Rationale and efficacy of conservative therapy for gastro. esophageal reflux disease. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151: 448-54.

24. Hamilton JW, Borsen RI, Yamamoto DT, et a/. Sleeping on a wedge diminishes

exposure of the esophagus to refluxed acid. Dig Dis Sci 1988; 33: 518-22. 25. Harvey RF, Hadley N. Gall TR. et a/. Effects of sleeping with the bed-head raised

and ranitidine in patients with severe peptic esophagibs. Lancet 1987; ii: 1200-3. 26. Waring JP, Sanowski RA. Gastroesophageal reflux and cessation of smoking. Am

J Gastroenterol 1989; 9: 1076-8. 27. Kahrilas PJ, Gupta RR. Mechanisms of acid reflux associated with cigarette

smoking. Gut 1990; 31: 4-10.


28. Hogan WJ. Viegas de Andrade SR. Winship DH. Ethanol-induced acute esopha-

geal motor dysfunction. J Appl Physiol 1972; 32: 755-60. 29. Mayor EN, Grabowski Cl, Fisher RS. Effects of greater doses of alcohol upon

esophageal motor function. Gastroenterologv 1978; 75: 1133-6.

30. Vitale GC. Giedel WG, Patell B. et al. The effect of alcohol and nocturnal gastro. esophageal reflux. JAMA 1987; 258: 2077-9.

31. Moss HA, Washington N, Graves JL, et al. Antireflux agents: stratification and

flotation. Eur J Gastroent Hepat 1990; 2: 45-51. 32 Washington N. Investigation into the barrier of action of an algeldrate gastric

reflux suppressant, liquid gaviscon. Drug invest 1990; 2: 23-30.

33. Butt HJ. Tauber 0, Flack D. Gaviscon in reflux symptoms: results of a drug

monitoring study. Fortschr Med 1990; 108: 598-600. 34. Colin-Jones DG. Histamine,.receptor antagonist in gastroesophageal reflux. Gut

1989; 30: 1305-8.

35. Meuwissen SGM, KlinkenbergKnol EC. Treatment of reflux esophagitis with H2

receptor antagonists. Stand J Gastroenterol 1988; 23(Suppl 146): 201-13.

36. DeHart J. Brand DL. Brown FC. et al. Cimetidine and treatment of symptomatic

gastroesophageal reflux: a double-blind controlled trial. Gastroenterology 1978; 74: 441-8.

37. Wesdorp E. Bartelsman J, Pape K, Dekker W, Tyfgat GNJ. Oral cimetidine and

reflux esophagrtis: a double-blind controlled trial. Gastroenterology 1978: 74: 821- 4.

38. Ferguson R. Dronfield MW, Atkinson M. Cimetidine and treatment of reflux esophagitis with peptic stricture. BMJ 1979; ii: 472-4.

39. Palmer RH, Frank WO. Rockhold FW, Wetherington JD. Young MD. Cimetidine

800 mg twice daily for healing erosions and ulcers in gastroesophageal reflux dis-

ease. J Clin Gastroenterol 1990; lZ(Suppl): S29-S34.

40. Bright-Asare P, ElBassoussi M. Cimetidine, metoclopramide and placebo in the treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. J Clin Gastroenterol 1980: 2:

149-56.

41. Fiasse R. Hanin C. Lepot A. et al. Controlled trial of cimetidine in reflux esophagi-

tis. Dig Dis Sci 1980: 25: 750-5.

42. Goy SG. Maynard JH, McNaughton WM, et al. Ranitidine and placebo in the treatment of reflux esophagrtis: a double-blind randomized trial. Med J Aust 1983; 2:

558-61.

43. Sontag S. Robinson M. McCallum RW. et al. Ranitidine therapy for gastroesopha-

geal reflux disease: results of a large double.blind trial. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147: 145-9.

44. Hine KR. Holmes G. Melikian V, et al. Ranitidine in reflux esophagitis. Digestion 1984; 29: 119-23.

45. Wesdorp ICE, Dekker W, Klinkenberg-Knol EC. Treatment of reflux esophagitis

with ranitidine. Gut 1983; 24: 921-4.

46. Sherbaniuk R. Wensel R. Bailey R. et al. Ranitidine in the treatment of sympto-

matic gastroesophageal refiux disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 1984; 6: 9-15.

47. Lehtola J. Niemela S. Martikainen J. et al. Ranitidine, 150 mg. three times a day,

for the treatment of reflux esophagitis: placebo-controlled double-blind study. Stand J Gastroenterol 1986; 21: 175-80.

48. Johansson JE, Boreryd B, Johansson K, et al. Double-blind cross-over study of

ranitidine and placebo in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Stand J Gastroenterol 1986; 21: 769-78.

49. Sabesin SM. Schaftner JA, Bradstreet DJ, eta/. Famotidine-symptomatic relief in healing, in patients with reflyx esophagitis: results-of a U.S. multicenter trial

[Abstract]. Gastroenterology 1990; 98: Al 17.

50. Simon TJ, Berlin RG. Stein DT, et al. 8.i.d. regimens of an H,-receptor antagonist

heal erosive esophagitis: results of a U.S. double-blind randomized multicenter trial [Abstract]. Gastroenterology 1990; 98: A21.

51. Festen HPM, Wesdorp ICE, Dekker W. The efficacy of famotidine 20 mg bid

versus 40 mg bid in the treatment of erosive/ulcerative esophagitis: significance of esophagitis and duration of therapy [Abstract]. Gastroenterology 1991; 100: A63.

52. Cloud M, Offen W. Robinson M. Nizatidine versus placebo in gastroesophageal reffux disease: a 12.week. multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Am J Gas- troenterol 1991; 86: 1735-42.

53. Quik RFP, Cooper MJ. Gleeson M. et al. A comparison of two doses of nizatidine versus placebo in the treatment of reflux esophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Therap 1990; 4: 201-11.

54. Pignon JP, Poynard T. Naveau S, Sebag G, Chaput JC. Critical review of random.

bed double.blind trials in the medical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux. Gastro enterol Clin Biol 1987; 11: 668-80.

55. Meuwissen SGM. KlinkenbergKnol EC. Management of gastroesophageal reflux


disease: are there alternatives to omeprazole? Digestion 1989; 44: 54-62.

56. Castell DO. Rationale for high-dose Hzreceptor blockade in the treatment of

gastroesophageal reffux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Therap 1991; S(Suppl): 59-

67. 57. Johnson NJ, Boyd EGS, Mills JG, Wood JR. Acute treatment of reflux esophagitis: multicenter trial to compare 150 mg ranitidine. b.d. with 300 mg ranitidine q.d.s.

Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut 1989; 3: 259-66.

58. On WE, Robinson MG. Humphries TJ, et al. Dose ranging effects of famotidine

on gastric acid suppression. Aliment Pharmacol Therap 1988; 2: 229-35. 59. Nagashima R. Mechanisms of action of sucralfate. J Clin Gastroenterol 1981; 3:

117-27.

83. Saco LS, Orlando RC, Levison SL, Bozymski EM, Jones JD. Frakes JT. Double-

blind controlled trial of bethanechol and antacid vs. placebo and antacid in the

treatment of erosive esophagitis. Gastroenterology 1982; 82: 1369-72. 84. Thanik KD, Chey WY, Shaw AN, Gutierrez JH. Reflux esophagitis: effect of oral

bethanechol on symptoms and endoscopic findings. Ann Intern Med 1980; 93:

805-B. 85. Albibi R. McCallum RW. Metocldpramide: pharmacology and clinical application.

Ann Intern Med 1983; 98: 86-95.

86. Johnson DA, Drane WE, Curran J. ef al. Metoclopramide responsive esophageal and gastric motor abnormalities in patients with progressive systemic sclerosis.

Arch Intern Med 1987; 147: 1597-601.

60. Schwettzer EJ, Bass BL. Johnson LF, et al. Sucralfate prevents experimental 87. McCallum RW, Kline MM, Curry N, Sturdevant RAL. Comparative effects of met-

peptic esophagitis in rabbits. Gastroenterology 1985; 88: 611-9. oclopramide and bethanechol on lower esophageal sphrncter pressure on reflux

61. Orlando RC, Turjman N4 Tobey NA, et a/. Mucosal protection by sucralfate and patients. Gastroenterology 1975; 68: 1114-B.

its components in acid-exposed rabbit esophagus. Gastroenterology 1987; 93: 352- 88. Champion MC, Hartnett M. Yeu M. Domperidone, a new dopamine antagonist.

61. Can Med Assoc J 1986; 35: 457-61.

62. Weis S, Brunner H, Butner GR. Treatment of reflux esophagitis with sucralfate.

Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1983; 108: 1706-11.

63. Williams RM, Orlando RC, Bozymski EM, et al. Multi-center trial of sucralfate suspension in the treatment of reflux esophagitis. Am J Med 1987; 83(Suppl 38):

61-6. 64. Laitinen S, Btahlberg M. Kairaluoma M. et al. Sucralfate versus an alginate

antacid in reflux esophagitis. Stand J Gastroenterol 1985; 20: 229-32.

65. Bremner CG, Marks IN. Segal I, Simjee A. Reffux esophagitis therapy sucralfate versus ranitidine in a doubleblind multicenter trial. Am J Med 1991; 91(Suppl 2A):

119s-22s. 66. Tytgat GNJ. Clinical efficacy of sucralfate in reflux esophagitis: comparison with

cimetidine. Am J Med 1987: 83(Suppl 38): 38-42.

67. Simon B. Mueller P. Comparison of the effect of sucralfate and ranitidine in reflux esophagitis. Am J Med 1987; 83(Suppl 38): 43-7.

68. Elsborg L, Jorgensen F. Sucralfate vs. cimetidine in reflux esophagitis: a double- blind clinical study. Stand J Gastroenterol 1991; 26: 146-50.

69. Ross E. Toledo-Pimentel V, Bordas JM. ef al. Healing of erosive esophagitis with sucralfate and cimetidine: influence of pretreatment of lower esophageal sphincter

pressure and serum pepsinogen I levels. Am J Med 1991; 91(Suppl 2A): 107-13.

70. Jorgensen F, Elsborg L Sucralfate vs. cimetidine in treatment of reflux esophagitis with special reference to the esophageal motor function, Am J Med 1991;

91(Suppl 2A): 114-7. 71. Pace F. Lazzaroni M. Bianchi-Porro G. Failure of sucralfate in the treatment of

refractory esophagitis vs. high dose famotidine: an endoscopic study. Stand J Gas- troenterol 1991; 26: 491-4.

89. Horowitz M. Harding PE. Chatterton BE, Collins PJ, Shearman DJC. Harding P.

Acute and chronic effects of domperidone on gastric emptying in diabetic auto-

nomrc neuropathy. Dig Dis Sci 1985; 31): 1-9. 90. Blackwell JN, Heading RC, Fettes MR. Effects of domperidone on lower esopha-

geal sphincter pressure and gastroesophageal reflux in patients with peptic esopha. gitis. Roy Sot Med Intern Cong Symp Series 1981; 31: 57-65.

91. Goethals C. Domperidone in the treatment of postprandial symptoms, sugges-

tive of gastroesophageal reflux. Curr Ther Res 1979; 26: 876-80. 92 Binds JE, Quinlan JE. Kleinman RE. Winter HS. Double-blind randomized pla.

cebocontrolled trial for the evaluation of domperidone in the treatment of children

with gastroesophageal reflux [Abstract]. Gastroenterology 1990; 98: A21. 93. Champion MC. Domperidone: minireview. Gen Pharmacol 1988; 19: 499-505.

94. McCallum RW. Cisapride: a new class of prokinetic agent. Am J Gastroenterol

1991; 86: 135-49.

72 Carling L, Cronstedt J. Engqvist 4 et al. Sucralfate versus placebo in reflux

esophagitis: a double-blind multicenter study. Stand J Gastroenterol 1988; 23: 1117-24.

95. Janssens J, Ceccatelli P, Vantrappen G. Cisapride restores the decreased lower

esophageal sphincter pressure in reflux patients. Digestion 1986; 34: 139-43.

96. Lapoutre L. Bollin J. Vandewalle N, et al. Therapeutic side-effects of cisapride in reflux oesophagitis: a double.blind. placebo controlled study. In: Johnson AG. Lux G,

eds. Progress in the treatment of gastrointestinal motility disorders: the role of

cisapride. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica. 1988: 63-5. 97. Baldy F, Bianchi.Porro G, Dubrtlla G, eta/. Placebo controlled study of the effect

of cisapride on the lesions and symptoms of reflux oesophagitis. In: Johnson AG, Lux G. eds. Progress in the treatment of gastrointestinal motility disorders: the role of

cisapride. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1988: 66-9.

98. Collins BJ, Love AHG. The effect of chronic oral admmistration of cisapride and a ldhour pH profile oesophageal transit and gastric emptying in patients with

evidence of gastroesophageal reflux: a placebo-controlled trial [Abstract]. Digestion 1986; 34: 142.

73. Herrera JL, Shea SS, McCabe M, Peura DA, Johnson LF. Sucralfate used as adfunctive therapy in patients with severe erosive pephc esophagitis resulting from

gastroesophageal reffux. Am J Gastroenterol 1990; 85: 1335-B.

74. Gustado M. Testoni PA, Passaretti S, et al. Ranitidine versus metoclopramide in the treatment of reflux esophagitis. Hepatogastroenterology 1983; 30: 96-8.

75. Maddern Gt, Kirroff GK, Leppard PI, Jamieson GG. Domperfdone, metoclopra. mide, and placebo: all give symptomatic improvement in gastroesophageal reflux. J Clin Gastroenterol 1986; 8: 135-40.

76. Manousos ON, Mandidis A, Michailidis D. Treatment of reffux symptoms in esophagitis patients: comparative trial with cisapride and metocfopramide. Curr

Ther Res 1987; 42: 807-13.

99. Collins BJ. Love AHG. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: a review. Stand J Gas.

troenterol 1989; 165: 19-27.

77. Janisch HD. BOUZO MH, Hutteman NW, ef al. Double-blind treatment of cisapride

and ranitidine in the treatment of reflux esophagitis. In: Johnson AG, LUX G, eds. Progress in the treatment of gastrointestinal motility disorders: the role of c&pride. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1988: 70-3.

78. Thanik KD. Chey WY, Shaw AN, Hamilton D, Nadelson N. Bethanechol or cimeti-

dine in the treatment of symptomatic reflux esophagitis. Arch Intern Med 1982: 142: 1479-81.

79. Vatenzuela JE. Effects of domperidone on symptoms of reflux esophagitis. R Sot Med Intern Cong Symp Series 1981; 31: 51-6.

80. Galmfche JP, Fraitag B, Filoche B, et al. Double-blind comparison of clsapride and cimetidine in the treatment of reffux esophagitis. Dig Dis Sci 1990; 35: 649-55.

81. Arabehety JT. Leit OR, Fassler S. et al. Cisapride and metoclopramide in the

treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Ther 1988; lo: 421-28. 82 McCaffum RW. lppoliti AF, Cooney C. Sturdevant RAL. A controlled trial of metocfopramide in symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 354- 7.

100. Richter JE. Efficacy of cisapride on symptoms and healing of gastroesopha.

geal reflux disease: a review. Stand J Gastroenterol 1989; 165: 19-27.

101. Hawkey Cf. The place of crsapride in therapeutics: an interim verdict. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut 1991; 5: 351-6.

102 Janssens J, Peters TL. Vantrappen G, et al. Improvement of gastric emptying

and diabetic gastroparesis by erythromycin. N Engl J Med 1990; 32: 1028-31. 103. Champion G. Singh S. Nellans H, Richter JE. Erythromycin from acne to acid reflux [Abstract]. Gastroenterology 1991; 5: A41.

104. Adams MH, Ostrosky JD, Kirkwood CF. Therapeutic evaluation of omeprazole. Clin Pharm 1988; 7: 725-45.

105. Hetzef DJ. Dent J, Read WD, et al. Healing and relapse of severe peptic esophagitis after treatment with omeprazole. Gastroenterology 1988; 95: 903-12.

106. Sontag SJ. Hirschowitz BI, Holt S, et al. Two doses of omeprazole vs. placebo in symptomatic erosive esophagitis: the U.S. multicenter study. Gastroenterology 1992; 102: 109-18.

107. Dehn TCB. Sheppard HA, Colin-Jones D, Kettlewell MGW, Carroll NJ. Double- blind comparison of omeprazole (40 mg o.d. vs. cimetidine 400 mg q.i.d.) in the

treatment of symptomatic erosive reflux esophagitis, assessed endoscopically, his. tologically and by 24.hour pH monitoring. Gut 1990; 31: 509-13.

108. Zeftun P, Rampal P. Barbeir P, et al. Omeprazole vs. ranitidine in the treatment Of reffuX esophagitis: results of a randomized, double.blind. multicenter French-

Belgian study. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 1989; 13: 457-62.

109. Sanmark S. Carlson R, Faus 0, et al. Omeprazole or ranitldine in the treatment of reffux esophagitis: results of a double-blind Scandinavian multicenter study.

Stand J Gastroenterol 1988; 23: 625-32.


54-96s May 27, 1992 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 92 (suppl 5A)


110. Havland T, Laursen LS, Skoubo-Kristensen E, ef al. Omeprazole and ranitidine

in the treatment of reflux esophagitis: double-blind comparative trial. BMJ 1988;

296: 89-92. 111. Vantrappen G. Rutgerts L, Schurmans P, ef al. Omeprazole (40 mp) is superior

to ranitidine in the shortterm treatment of ulcerative reflux esophagitis. Dig Ois Sci

1988; 33: 523-9. 112. KlinkenbergKnol EC, Jansen JBMJ, Festen HP, ef al. Double-blind multicenter

comparison of omeprazole and ranitidine in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis.

Lancet 1987; i: 349-51. 113. Maton PN. Omeprazole. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 965-75.

114. Bruner G, Crutzfeldt W. Omeprazole in the long-term management of patients

with acid related diseases resistant to ranitidine. Stand J Gastroenterol 1989; 166(Suppl): 101-5.

115. Dent J. KlinkenbergKnol EC, Elm G, et a/. Omeprazole in the longterm man-

agement of patients with reflux esophagitis. refractory to histamine Hzreceptor antagonists. Stand J Bastroenterol 1989; 24(Suppl): 176-82.

116. Bardhan KO. Morris P, Thompson M, et a/. Omeprazole in the treatment of erosive oesophagitis, refractory to high dose of cimetidine. Stand J Gastroenterol

1989; 24(Suppl): 166-X’.

117. KlinkenbergKnol EC, Meuwissen SGM. Treatment of reflux oesophagitis resistant to H,-receptor antagonists. Digestion 1989; 44(Suppl): 47-53.

118. Bardhan KO, Morris P, Thompson M, et a/. Omeprazole in the treatment of

erosive oesophagitis. refractory to high dose of cimetidine and ranitidine. Gut 1990;

31: 745-9. 119. Lundell L, Backman L. Extrdm‘P, et al. Omeprazole or high dose ranitidine in

the treatment of patients with reflux esophagitis. not responding to standard doses

of H,-receptor antagonists. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut 1990; 4: 145-55. 120. Sontag S, Hendricks T, Herschowitz 8 et al. Omeprazole for esophagitis in

ulcers refractory to H2 blockers [Abstract]. Gastroenterology 1988; 94: A436.

121. Felsa 0, Aadland E. Lotvit T. Omeprazole in the treatment of patients with severe erosive esophagitis, resistant to treatment with H,-receptor antagonists [Ab-

stract]. Stand J Gastroenterol 1987; 135: 38.

122. Hameeteman W, Tytgat GN. Healing of chronic Barrett’s ulcers with omeprazole. Am J Gastroenterol 1986: 81: 764-6.

123. Koop H, Hotz J. Pommer G. Klein M, Arnold R. Prospective evaluation of

omeprazole treatment in reflux oesophagitis refractory to He-receptor antagonists, Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut 1990; 4: 593-9.

124. Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SGM. Combined gastric and oesophageal

24.hour pH monitoring and oesophageal manometry in patients with reflux disease, resistant to omeprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut 1990; 4: 485-95.

125. Sontag SJ. On the medical management of reflux esophagitis: role of antacids

and acid inhibition. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1990; 19: 683-712. 126. Langman MJS. Omeprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut 1991; 5: 357-64.

127. Carlsson E, Larsson H. Mattsson H, @berg E. Sundel G. Pharmacology and

toxicology of omeprazole-with special reference to the effects on gastric mucosa.

Stand J Gastroenterol 1986; llB(Suppl): 31-8. 128. Lieberman DA. Keeffe EB. Treatment of severe reflux esophagitis with cimeti-

dine and metoclopramide. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104: 21-6. 129. Masci E. Testoni PA, Passaretti S, Guslandi M. Tihobello A. Comparison of

ranitidme. domperidone maleate and ranitidine plus domperidone maleate in the short term treatment of refiux esophagitis. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1985; 10:

1-6. 130. Galmiche JP, Brandstatter G. Evreux M. et a/. Control of severe reflux esopha-

gitis with combrned cisapride-cimetidine treatment: a double-blind controlled trial.

In: Johnson AG. Lux G. eds. Progress in the treatment of gastrointestinal motility disorders: the role of cisapride. Amsferdam: Excerpta Medica. 1988: 74-5.

131. Young GP, Nagy GS, Myran J. ef al. Treatment of reflux esophagitis with a

carbenoxolone/antacids/alginate preparation: a double-blind controlled trial. Stand

J Gastroenterol 1986; 21: 1098-104. 132. Erickson CA Chiedal WG, Cranford CA, Cuschieri A. Combined cimetidine-algi.

nate antacid therapy vs. single agent treatment for reflux esophagrtis: results of a

prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1988: 77: 133-7.

133. Koelz HA, Birchler R, Eretholz A. Healing and relapse of reflux esophagitis

during treatment with ranitidine. Gastroenterology 1988: 91: 1198-205. 134. Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Jansen JEMJ. Lammers CBHW, Nelis F, Meuwissen SGM.

Temporary cessation of long-term maintenance treatment with omeprazole in pa-

tients with Hz-receptor antagonist-resrstant reflux oesophagitis: effects of symp

toms, endoscopy. serum gastnn, and gastric acid output. Stand J Gastroenterol 1990; 25: 1144-50.

135. Lieberman DA. Medical therapy for chronic reflux esophagitis: long-term

follow-up. Arch intern Med 1987; 147: 1717-20. 136. Bright-Asare P, Behar J, Brand 0. Effects of long-term maintenance cimetidine

therapy in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 1982; 82: 1025.

137. Festen H. Oriessen W, Lammers C. et al. Cimetidine and the treatment of severe ulcerative reflux oesophagitis: results of an eight week double-blind study

and subsequent longterm maintenance treatment. Neth J Med 1980; 23: 237-40.

138. Sontag S, Vlahcevik CR, Orr W, ef al. Ranitidine vs. placebo in long-teml treat-

ment of gastroesophageal reflux [Abstract]. Gastroenterology 1985; 88: 1595. 139. Blum AL, Verlinden M. the EUROCIS Trialists. Cisapride prevents relapse of

reflux oesophagitis [Abstract]. Gastroenterology 1990; 98: A22.

140. Verlinden M. Dews G. the Belgian Crsapride Maintenance Trial Group. Healing and prevention of relapse of reflux oesophagitis by cisapride [Abstract]. Gastroen-

terology 1990; 98: A144.

141. Koop H. Arnold R. Long-term maintenance treatment of reflux esophagitis with

omeprazole: prospective study in patients with H, blocker-resistant esophagitis. Dig Ois Sci 1991; 36: 552-7.

142. Bruner GHG, Lamberts R, Crutzfeldt W. Efficacy and safety of orneprazole in the long-term treatment of peptic ulcer and reflux oesophagitis. resistant to raniti-

dine. Digestion 1990: 47(Suppl 1): 64-8.

143. Kahrilas PJ. Oodds WJ. Hogan WJ, eta/. Peristaltic dysfunction in peptic esophagrtis. Gastroenterology 1986; 91: 897-904.

144. Kahrilas PJ. Oodds WJ. Hogan WJ. Effect of peristaltic dysfunction in esopha-

geal volume clearance. Gastroenterology 1988; 94: 73-80.


Date post:	16-Oct-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	david-a-johnson
View:	224 times
Download:	6 times

Medical therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Documents