The American journal of gastroenterology · 2004
Symptom response and healing of erosive esophagitis with proton-pump inhibitors in patients with Helicobacter pylori infection.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vakil Nimish B, Traxler Barry M, Levine Douglas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to determine the severity of esophagitis and the response to treatment with proton-pump inhibitors in patients with and without evidence of Helicobacter pylori infection.
METHODS: This retrospective analysis evaluated data collected in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial that assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 2,624) versus lansoprazole 30 mg (n = 2,617) for up to 8 wk in the treatment of reflux-associated erosive esophagitis. At baseline, erosive esophagitis was graded using the Los Angeles (LA) classification; serologic testing for H. pylori was performed using a FlexSure HP serum test.
RESULTS: There were 14.7% of patients who were seropositive for H. pylori. The percentages of seropositive and seronegative patients with each grade of esophagitis were: LA grade A, 38%, 36%; LA grade B, 41%, 39%; LA grade C, 16%, 19%; and LA grade D, 5%, 6%, respectively. Severe heartburn was present at baseline in 42% of H. pylori-positive and 42% of H. pylori-negative patients. Life-table healing rates with esomeprazole were not influenced by H. pylori status (seropositive 92.6% (95% confidence interval: 89.8-95.4); seronegative 92.6% (95% confidence interval: 91.4-93.7)). The rates with esomeprazole were significantly higher than those with lansoprazole (seropositive 90.5% (95% confidence interval: 87.5-93.5); seronegative 88.5% (95% confidence interval: 87.1-89.8)) after adjusting for baseline H. pylori status (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The severity of erosive esophagitis at baseline was similar regardless of H. pylori seropositivity. Healing rates were not influenced by H. pylori status.
METHODS: This retrospective analysis evaluated data collected in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial that assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 2,624) versus lansoprazole 30 mg (n = 2,617) for up to 8 wk in the treatment of reflux-associated erosive esophagitis. At baseline, erosive esophagitis was graded using the Los Angeles (LA) classification; serologic testing for H. pylori was performed using a FlexSure HP serum test.
RESULTS: There were 14.7% of patients who were seropositive for H. pylori. The percentages of seropositive and seronegative patients with each grade of esophagitis were: LA grade A, 38%, 36%; LA grade B, 41%, 39%; LA grade C, 16%, 19%; and LA grade D, 5%, 6%, respectively. Severe heartburn was present at baseline in 42% of H. pylori-positive and 42% of H. pylori-negative patients. Life-table healing rates with esomeprazole were not influenced by H. pylori status (seropositive 92.6% (95% confidence interval: 89.8-95.4); seronegative 92.6% (95% confidence interval: 91.4-93.7)). The rates with esomeprazole were significantly higher than those with lansoprazole (seropositive 90.5% (95% confidence interval: 87.5-93.5); seronegative 88.5% (95% confidence interval: 87.1-89.8)) after adjusting for baseline H. pylori status (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The severity of erosive esophagitis at baseline was similar regardless of H. pylori seropositivity. Healing rates were not influenced by H. pylori status.