Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024
Effects of Benesco™ on Esophageal Sensitivity, Mucosal Barrier Function, and Reflux Symptoms: A Mechanistic Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kuipers Thijs, Nijhuis Renske A B Oude, Masclee Gwen M C, Bredenoord Albert J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most prevalent gastrointestinal diseases in the western world. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the cornerstone of GERD management however a subset of patients seeks for (natural) alternative therapies. Benesco™ is an over-the-counter supplement, of which the active ingredient is quercetin and has a presumed positive effect on esophageal barrier function. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the effect of benesco™ on esophageal sensitivity, mucosal barrier function, and reflux symptoms.
METHODS: Patients with GERD were evaluated using acid perfusion tests, an upper endoscopy with electrical tissue impedance spectroscopy, and esophageal biopsies.
RESULTS: 8 patients (3 men, median age 45 (34-64)) were included. The perfusion sensitivity score (PSS) did not change significantly after treatment with benesco™ (90.5 (21.4-129.7) to 62.5 (16.4-96.9) p = 0.123). Esophageal sensitivity based on the maximum reported VAS score during the esophageal acid perfusion test did not change significantly after treatment with benesco™ (7.4 (5.3-9.8) to 7.7 (5.3-8.7) p = 0.482). Furthermore, no effects were seen on measures of mucosal barrier function such as extracellular in vivo impedance (ETIS) (6807 (5153-8883) Ω·m vs 6702 (5106-7847) Ω·m, p = 0.575), in vitro transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) (183 (153-204) Ω.cm2 vs 201 (128-250) Ω.cm2, p = 1.000), or fluorescein flux (896 (73-1922) nmol/cm2/h vs 811 (187-2693) nmol/cm2/h, p = 0.237).
CONCLUSION: We did not observe an improvement of acid perception, mucosal barrier function, or reflux symptoms by benesco™ in this study.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register number: NL9324.
METHODS: Patients with GERD were evaluated using acid perfusion tests, an upper endoscopy with electrical tissue impedance spectroscopy, and esophageal biopsies.
RESULTS: 8 patients (3 men, median age 45 (34-64)) were included. The perfusion sensitivity score (PSS) did not change significantly after treatment with benesco™ (90.5 (21.4-129.7) to 62.5 (16.4-96.9) p = 0.123). Esophageal sensitivity based on the maximum reported VAS score during the esophageal acid perfusion test did not change significantly after treatment with benesco™ (7.4 (5.3-9.8) to 7.7 (5.3-8.7) p = 0.482). Furthermore, no effects were seen on measures of mucosal barrier function such as extracellular in vivo impedance (ETIS) (6807 (5153-8883) Ω·m vs 6702 (5106-7847) Ω·m, p = 0.575), in vitro transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) (183 (153-204) Ω.cm2 vs 201 (128-250) Ω.cm2, p = 1.000), or fluorescein flux (896 (73-1922) nmol/cm2/h vs 811 (187-2693) nmol/cm2/h, p = 0.237).
CONCLUSION: We did not observe an improvement of acid perception, mucosal barrier function, or reflux symptoms by benesco™ in this study.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register number: NL9324.