Health Articles

 

Untitled

An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus ongastro-oesophageal reflux diseaseHenry Cohena, Joaquim Prado P. Moraes-Filhob, Maria Luisa Cafferatac,Giselle Tomassoc, Graciela Salisd, Oscar Gonza´leze, Jorge Valenzuelaf,Prateek Sharmag, Peter Malfertheinerh, David Armstrongi, Lars Lundellj,Rodolfo Cortik, Paulo Sakaib, Ivan Ceconellob and the Latin-AmericanGORD Consensus Group* In recognition of the high prevalence of gastro-oesophageal Department of Gastroenterology, Uruguayan Medical School, Montevideo, Uruguay, bDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo School of reflux disease (GORD) and its importance in Latin America, Medicine, Sao Paolo, Brazil, cPerinatal Research Unit, Hospital de Clinicas, the InterAmerican Association of Gastroenterology and the Montevideo, Uruguay, dDepartment of Gastroenterology, Posadas Hospital,Buenos Aires, Argentina, eDepartment of Gastroenterology, St Joseph Hospital, InterAmerican Society of Digestive Endoscopy organized a Bogota, Colombia, fDepartment of Gastroenterology, Las Condes Clinic, Latin-American Consensus on GORD in Cancun, Mexico in Santiago, Chile, gSchool of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, USA, hDepartment of Medicine, Otto Von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany, September 2004. The main objectives of the consensus iDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, HSC-4W8, MUMC. 1200 Main meeting were to provide evidence-based guidance with Street, West Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 325, Canada, jDepartment of Surgery,Gastrocentrum, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden and respect to the diagnosis and treatment of GORD, relevant to kDepartment of Gastroenterology, Carlos Bonorino Udaondo Hospital, Capital, all countries in the region. The methodology, results and recommendations of the consensus are described in Correspondence to Henry Cohen, Department of Gastroenterology, detail. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 18:349–368 Uruguayan Medical School, Avenida Italia 2370, 11600 Montevideo, Uruguay Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Received 11 July 2005 Accepted 13 October 2005 European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, 18:349–368 Keywords: consensus, diagnosis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, oesophagitis,therapy (tobacco, alcohol and coffee intake) and body mass index Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is one of the populational study a probabilistic most common disorders in medical practice. Data from model was used. The results showed the global north America [1] indicate that heartburn, the most prevalence of heartburn was 11.9% (1651 individuals).
predominant symptom of the disease, occurs at least once a week in 19.8% of the studied population. Similar data (637 individuals) and GORD in 7.3% (1014 individuals).
have been reported in other developed nations [2], but The average ages of both groups were similar (men information on the prevalence of GORD in Latin- 36.9 ± 15.0; women 39.6 ± 15.1 years). Women were American countries is scarce. However, a population- more affected in both groups. The occurrence of GORD based national study from Brazil, enrolling 13 959 adults increased with age, and was more prevalent after the age was conducted in 22 Brazilian cities. The inclusion of 55 years. The BMI was in the normal range and was criteria were the presence of heartburn at least once a week (‘heartburn group') and age greater than 16 years.
25.3 ± 5.2 kg/m2). In both groups the individuals related Individuals with heartburn with a frequency of more than their symptoms to food intake, fatty and spicy foods once a week were considered as having gastro-oesopha- (heartburn group 64.7%, 28.5%, 17.7%; GORD group geal reflux disease (‘GORD group'). Factors related to the 55.0%, 25.9%, 11.7%, respectively). In the GORD group, complaint were asked, such as predisposing factors, habits stress (24.2%) and health problems (22.3%) were morerelated to the symptoms than in the heartburn group *Latin-American GORD Consensus Group (20.0 and 15.0%, respectively).
President of AIGE: Carlos Zapata.
President of SIED: Daniel Taullard.
Delegates of the countries: Jorge Chang Mayorga, Guatemala; Esteban Trakal, They concluded that the global prevalence of heartburn Argentina; Carlos Contardo Zambrano, Peru; Carlos Rodrı´guez Ulloa, Peru;Fernando Contreras, Dominican Republic; Carmelo Blasco, Paraguay; Miguel (11.9%) is relatively high in the Brazilian urban popula- Angel Valdovinos, Mexico; Miguel Abdo Francis, Mexico; Rafael Ortun˜o tion, although lower than the reported figures in other Escalante, Bolivia; Luiz Leite Luna, Brazil; Maria Vergara Albarracin, Chile; countries. Heartburn and GORD have a higher preva- Manuel Paniagua Este´vez, Cuba; Gonzalo Estape Carriquirry, Uruguay; MariaElena Ruiz, Venezuela; Marianella Madrigal Borloz, Costa Rica.
lence in women and both are related to food intake, fatty c 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 and spicy foods. GORD is more prevalent in individuals opinion that any group of people may display when older than 35 years [3].
considering a topic, appropriate methods are needed fororganizing and synthesizing subjective judgements when An interesting paper published recently by Argentinean uncertainties or differences of opinion exist.
authors studied self-reported questionnaires validated atthe Mayo Clinic, USA, submitted to 1000 individuals A Latin-American consensus on the diagnosis and aged 18–80 years from 17 different areas in the country treatment of GORD was organized to review the best [4]. The overall prevalence of any typical GORD evidence available from the literature and the possible symptom experienced in the previous year was 61.2%.
influences of different demographic, socioeconomic and The prevalence of frequent GORD symptoms was 23%, disease factors on the management of this disease in this and the prevalence of GORD was 11.9%. The authors concluded that, in Argentina, the typical symptoms ofGORD are highly prevalent at the national level.
Specialists from Latin-American gastroenterology socie-ties, representing 16 countries, were invited by the Inter- No other reliable data could be found in the search American Association of Gastroenterology (AIGE) and performed on the epidemiology of GORD in Latin the InterAmerican Society of Digestive Endoscopy America. Because of the high prevalence of GORD, its (SIED), to take part in a meeting held in Cancun, significant impact on quality of life [5,6], the severity of Mexico, in September 2004. The aim of the consensus its complications, the number of related hospitalizations meeting was to discuss, in depth, and to vote on the main and its economic consequences [7], several national and issues relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of GORD, international consensus conferences have been developed in accordance with evidence-based medicine recommen- dations. This article represents the conclusions andrecommendations of this consensus meeting.
The need for consensus meetings reflects not only anincreasing interest in this important disorder, but also a lack of unanimity with respect to diagnostic and In December 2003, the Boards of Directors of the AIGE therapeutic approaches, uncertainty about the value of and the SIED decided to hold a Latin-American different management options and variations in practice consensus meeting on the management of GORD. Two between physicians and between countries.
gastroenterologists (H.C. and J.P.P.M.F.) were invited tocoordinate the consensus.
Ideally, clinical practice should be guided by thestandards of evidence-based medicine, derived from The main objectives of the consensus were that it should: rigorously conducted studies. However, there are few (i) be representative of and relevant to all countries healthcare areas for which sufficient evidence-based affiliated to AIGE and SIED; (ii) be evidence based; research exists to guide all decisions, and in some (iii) deal with the major management issues relevant to instances appropriate studies may never be available. It GORD: diagnosis and treatment; (iv) include invited is not unusual that diagnostic and therapeutic procedures experts from Latin America, north America and Europe; are introduced and incorporated into practice without a and (v) follow the methodology of the National Institutes rigorous evaluation of their quality. In some cases, the of Health (NIH) for the organization of a consensus procedures may prove to be beneficial, but on occasion the evaluation of these procedures may demonstrate thatthey do not produce the expected benefits, or even that Member countries of AIGE and SIED were invited to they are ineffective or harmful. Unfortunately, it may be send one or two delegates to participate in the consensus difficult to discontinue the use of such procedures once meeting. Nineteen delegates representing 16 countries they have been implemented, and it is therefore attended the meeting. Each country had a vote.
imperative to demonstrate the effectiveness of any Delegates were asked to vote if the evidence was not diagnostic method or treatment before it is adopted grade A. It was agreed that 70% of the votes were required for the approval of a recommendation. FourLatin-American and four international experts were also When rigorously conducted studies are not available, it is invited but were not entitled to vote.
inevitable that the development of guidelines is basedalso, to a greater or less extent, on the opinion and Two experts (G.T. and M.L.C.) in evidence-based experience of clinicians and experts. The development of medicine were invited to produce a systematic review a consensus must, therefore, incorporate both judgement- (systematic search, critical appraisal and summary of the based statements, endorsed by the group, in addition to evidence) of the diagnosis and treatment of GORD, evidence-based statements. Given the diversity of based on an extensive, systematic review of the literature.
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease Cohen et al.
A literature search was conducted, using Medline, the Grade of recommendation and levels of evidence [17] Cochrane Library and LILACS for the period up until March 2004. The search strategies were directed to adult patients with GORD; Barrett's oesophagus and paediatric Systematic review of RCT of good GORD were excluded. Therapeutic studies were in- methodological quality and with cluded if they assessed any of the following outcomes: Individual RCT with narrow confidence heartburn relief, healing of oesophagitis, heartburn remission, oesophagitis relapse, heartburn relapse, quality Non-controlled studies (dramatic findings) of life, satisfaction and hospital stay in surgical therapies.
Systematic review of cohort studies (with The language of the articles should be English, French or Individual cohort study (including low Spanish. The main search included gastro-oesophageal quality RCT, e.g. < 80% follow-up) Non-controlled cohort studies/ecological reflux (MeSH term), heartburn (MeSH term), oesopha- gitis (MeSH term). To obtain articles on diagnosis, the Systematic review of case–control search was limited to specificity and to obtain articles on studies (with homogeneity) Individual case–control study treatment, the search was limited to randomized Case series/poor quality cohort or case– controlled trials (pt). The search also included clinical Expert opinion without explicit critical practice guidelines, other consensus from Latin-American appraisal or based on physiology, and other countries and references of the studies. Three bench research or ‘first principles' investigators conducted the literature searches, indepen- RCT, Randomized controlled trial.
dently. In addition, Latin-American experts were asked tosearch the local literature and to submit the papers to theevidence-based experts; these region-specific studieswere included only if they fulfilled the eligibility criteria Barrett's oesophagus. Only two therapeutic studies fulfilled the elegibility criteria from the local literatureselected by the Latin-American experts.
The methodological quality was assessed using the usersguide for the medical literature for diagnostic [14] and Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation were treatment studies [15].
established according to the classification of the OxfordCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine for levels of Diagnostic results were expressed in terms of likelihood evidence [17] (Table 1). Grade A is highly recommended ratio (LR), which summarizes the ability of a test to and corresponds to evidence level 1 studies (systematic revise the previous probability of disease.
review of randomized controlled trials or a largerandomized controlled trial with low probability of bias Intervention study results were synthesized in a meta- or without bias).
analysis using the Review Manager 4.2 software [16].
Results were expressed as relative risks (RR) with 95% A grade A recommendation resulted in unanimous confidence intervals (CI) and as RR reduction with 95% acceptance by the consensus delegates and was not CI. A cost evaluation was not considered.
submitted to a formal voting process.
Grades B, C or D recommendations were accepted by The literature search identified 211 diagnostic studies; consensus upon voting.
after quality assessment, 92 studies were considered tofulfil the inclusion criteria. The remaining 119 studies Diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: avail- were excluded because they did not report measures of accuracy or were primary or secondary diagnostic studies.
The following issues were assessed: (i) definition of There were no Latin-American diagnostic studies to be GORD; (ii) 24 h pH monitoring; (iii) symptom-based decisions; (iv) upper endoscopy; (v) histology; (vi)oesophageal manometry; (vii) contrast radiology; (viii) For the treatment of GORD, 140 studies and a systematic impedance; (ix) bile monitoring (Bilitec); and (x) review were identified; of these, 93 studies fulfilled the therapeutic trial [e.g. the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) inclusion criteria for the consensus process. The remain- ing 47 studies were excluded because they were ofinadequate methodological quality, trials that had not Definition of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease assessed the results included in the consensus, they had GORD is a recurrent condition related to the retrograde included healthy volunteers as participants, they were flux of gastric contents (with or without duodenal paediatric trials, or they had included patients with contents) into the oesophagus or adjacent organs. It Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 Operative characteristics of ambulatory oesophageal pH for both non-erosive reflux disease and erosive oesopha- gitis. Patients reporting frequent symptoms would also appear to have more severe symptomatic episodes. Thosereporting severe heartburn are more likely to report daily Phase II studiesDe Meester [18] episodes than those presenting with mild symptoms.
Schindlbeck et al.a [19] Both the severity and frequency of symptoms improve Fuchs et al. [20] Phase III studies with medical treatment.
Vitale et al. [21] The threshold at which symptom intensity (severity or Jorgensen et al. [23] Bollschweiler et al. [24] frequency) leads to a change in the quality of life doesnot appear to be absolute, but is determined, at least LR + , Positive likelihood ratio.
aReceiver operator bidimensional curve.
partly, by how the quality of life is evaluated. From theGenval Workshop, it was determined that GORD ispresent when symptoms occur at least two or more times presents a varied spectrum of symptoms impairing the a week, based upon the negative impact that symptom patient's quality of life and it may present with or without frequency has on the patient's quality of life [7].
tissue damage.
Although there are very few data to indicate thatsymptom frequency is the sole determinant of quality 24-Hour pH monitoring of life in GORD, it is generally accepted, based on the For the purpose of the consensus, ambulatory oesopha- responses to various questionnaires [26] that reflux geal 24 h pH monitoring was considered to provide the symptoms occurring on two or more days a week is the most objective measurement of abnormal gastro-oesopha- threshold at which GORD has an impact on an geal reflux. This test is considered the best available, individual's quality of life.
but with some reservations, because of the inter andintraindividual variability of its findings, its inability to The adequate definition of heartburn and regurgitation assess oesophageal mucosal resistance, and controversy could improve diagnostic capability, because the inter- regarding an accepted threshold for differentiating pretation of these symptoms can vary between patients between normal and abnormal oesophageal acid exposure and doctors, and also between different physicians. Several (Table 2) [18–24].
questionnaires are being developed [27–29] to improvethe diagnostic utility of these symptoms, but they have not Although still considered by some to be the gold standard yet been fully validated. Currently, neither the presence of for the diagnosis of GORD, ambulatory 24-h oesophageal typical reflux symptoms (heartburn or regurgitation) nor pH monitoring using a standard pH electrode is not a the use of scores or questionnaires is sufficient to make an procedure without problems. However, it does provide a accurate diagnosis of GORD. If GORD were diagnosed on standardized measure of oesophageal acid exposure the basis of typical symptoms, 30% of individuals with against which to compare other diagnostic tests. In the GORD would not be diagnosed and 47% of healthy following sections, the sensitivity, specificity and positive individuals would be diagnosed incorrectly as having LR of these other diagnostic tests are calculated in GORD (evidence type 2; Table 3) [25,30–33].
comparison with oesophageal pH monitoring for thediagnosis of GORD. Assuming a prevalence or pretest In conclusion, the presence of typical symptoms probability of GORD of 25%, the analysis indicates the does not ensure the diagnosis of GORD.
extent to which a positive test changes the probabilitythat the individual has GORD.
Clinical symptoms Four studies have compared endoscopy with 24 h pH The symptoms considered typical of GORD are heart- monitoring for the diagnosis of GORD (Table 4) burn and regurgitation. Although these symptoms have relatively high sensitivity (B70%) for the diagnosis ofGORD, they have a low specificity (53%) [25]. There are If GORD were to be diagnosed using endoscopy, 40% of as yet no gold standard tests available for comparison.
individuals with GORD would not be diagnosed and 24% Until an ‘ideal' diagnostic method becomes available, the of healthy individuals would be diagnosed incorrectly as importance of the data obtained from history for making having GORD. Evidence type 2c.
the diagnosis of such a prevalent condition must beevaluated. Data from clinical studies indicate that boththe severity and the frequency of the symptoms are In conclusion, conventional endoscopy is a important, and also that there is a relationship between valuable investigation for the diagnosis of the severity of symptoms and quality of life impairment GORD but suffers from a lack of specificity.
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease Cohen et al.
Ability of the test to diagnose gastro-oesophageal reflux disease on the basis of clinical symptoms Author phase III studies Clinical symptoms Probability of GORD (%)a Klauser et al. [25] Klauser et al. [30] Carlsson et al. [31] Johnson et al. [33] Johnson et al. [33] GORD, Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; LR + , positive likelihood ratio; RDQ, reflux disease questionnaire.
aAssuming that prevalence or pretest probability for GORD is 25%, a patient with clinical symptoms will have a 30–40% probability of suffering from GORD (post-testprobability).
Ability of endoscopy to diagnose gastro-oesophageal reflux disease compared with pH monitoring GORD probability (%)a Endoscopy versus pH monitoringRichter [34] Fuchs et al. [20] Bollschweiler et al. [24] Ottignon et al. [35] GORD, Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; LR, likelihood ratio.
aCompared with pH monitoring, if endoscopy is positive, the probability of having GORD would increase from 25 to 40% based on some studies, or 85% based on otherstudies.
Ability of the histology test to diagnose gastro-oesophageal reflux disease compared with pH monitoring plus clinical symptoms, pH monitoring plus the proton pump inhibitor test and versus clinical symptoms Versus pH monitoring plus clinical symptomsSchindlbeck et al. [36] Ottignon et al. [35] Kasapidis et al. [37] Versus pH monitoring plus PPI testNarayani et al. [38] Versus clinical symptomsNandurkar et al. [39] Funch-Jensen et al. [40] GORD, Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; LR, likelihood ratio; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.
aAssuming a GORD prevalence of 25%, if the histology test is positive, the probability of having GORD would rise to 35–59%.
Oesophageal manometry Six studies with acceptable methodological quality were Four studies were included (Table 6) [20,24,42,43].
included (Table 5) [35–40].
There was a great heterogeneity between studies. Data The positive LR for oesophageal biopsy are low, so a from Richter [42] suggest that, if manometry was used as a positive test does not significantly modify the probability diagnostic test for GORD, 42% of diseased individuals of having GORD.
would remain without the diagnosis and 16% of healthyindividuals would be diagnosed as having GORD. Evi- If oesophageal biopsies were used to diagnose non-erosive dence type 2c.
GORD (using the criteria of Ismail-Beigi et al. [41]), 24%of individuals with GORD would not be diagnosed, Oesophageal manometry has limited indications in whereas 61% of healthy individuals would be diagnosed GORD: (i) To investigate oesophageal motility in incorrectly as having GORD. Evidence type 2c.
selected patients being considered for antireflux surgery,with the aim of helping the surgeon to define the optimal In conclusion, investigating the histology of plan of therapy. Oesophageal manometry may be needed the distal oesophageal squamous epithelium to identify achalasia or scleroderma; in the presence of is not considered valuable in the diagnosis of either, surgery may be inappropriate or an alternative procedure may be indicated. (ii) To determine the Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 Ability of oesophageal manometry to diagnose gastro-oesophageal reflux disease GORD probability (%) LOS < 10 mmHgJohansson et al. [43] Fuchs et al. [20] LOS < 6 mmHg + abnormal lengthBollschweiler et al. [24] GORD, Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; LOS, lower oesophageal sphincter; LR, likelihood ratio.
Ability of contrast radiology to diagnose gastro-oesophageal reflux disease GORD probability (%) Oesophagitis +Richter [42] Thompson et al. [44] GORD, Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; LR, likelihood ratio.
Ability of the proton pump inhibitor test to diagnose gastro-oesophageal reflux disease compared with pH monitoring Patients with positive Phase III studyBate et al. [45] Fass et al. [46]b Juul-Hansen et al. [48]c Schenk et al. [49]b GORD, Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; LR, likelihood ratio.
aUsing pH monitoring as the gold standard and assuming a 25% GORD prevalence and an LR + of 1.69, the probability of having GORD after a positive therapeutic testonly increases to 38%.
bOmeprazole 40 mg.
cLansoprazole 60 mg.
precise location of the lower oesophageal sphincter to Bile reflux monitoring permit the accurate placement of a pH electrode.
No studies were included. This is considered to be acostly method, with limited availability and manytechnical difficulties. It has not been validated for the In conclusion, manometry is not considered to diagnosis of GORD.
be a valuable diagnostic test for GORD.
Contrast radiology In conclusion, there is no evidence warranting Two studies were included (Table 7) [42,44].
its use in routine clinical practice.
In all studies included to evaluate radiology, the positive Therapeutic trials LR were less than 10, indicating that it has a limited effect Proton pump inhibitor test versus 24-h pH monitoring on the post-test probability of GORD. Evidence type 2c.
See Table 8 [45–49].
In conclusion, radiology is not considered to Proton pump inhibitor test versus endoscopy be a valuable diagnostic test for GORD.
See Table 9 [49–54]. The PPI therapeutic test wasassessed as a diagnostic test in 11 studies (five using pH monitoring and six using endoscopy as a comparator).
No studies were included. This is considered an Studies showed heterogeneity with respect to the different drugs used, doses, time and the evaluationmethod of the therapeutic response.
In conclusion, there is currently no evidencewarranting its use in the routine care of On the basis of these studies, a positive response to empirical treatment with PPI, 22–29% of individuals with Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease Cohen et al.
Ability of the proton pump inhibitor test to diagnose gastro-oesophageal reflux disease compared with endoscopy GORD prevalence (%) Patients with positive Phase III studyCarlsson et al. [50] Galmiche et al. [51] Hatlebakk et al. [52] Schenk et al. [49] Johnsson et al. [53] Venables et al. [54] GORD, Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; LR, likelihood ratio.
aUsing endoscopy as the gold standard and assuming a 25% GORD prevalence and a positive combined LR + of 1.20, the probability of having GORD after a positivetest would be only 30%.
GORD would not be diagnosed (possibly because they could not conclude from the evidence that either lifestyle would have needed a higher dose or longer duration of changes or diet had any benefit in the treatment of treatment), whereas 46–59% of healthy individuals would GORD [55–68].
be diagnosed incorrectly with GORD; thus, a positiveresponse to a PPI test is not sufficient to establish a Antacids, alginates and sucralfate diagnosis of GORD with confidence. Furthermore, a The best evidence is that the alginate–antacids combina- positive PPI test may also indicate the presence of tion was superior to placebo in patients with GORD.
another acid-related condition, an enhanced oesophageal We identified four randomized controlled trials [69–72] sensitivity to acid exposure or a placebo effect.
evaluating 186 patients. Fifty-three per cent of theantacids–alginate patients reported symptom improve- In conclusion, successful short-term treatment ment compared with 20% of the placebo group (RR 0.60; with a PPI in patients suspected of having 95% CI 0.39–0.91). The absolute difference in symptom GORD adds only confirmatory information to cure rates was 31% (95% CI 16–47%) giving a number the diagnosis of GORD as established by needed to treat of three (95% CI 2–6).
currently accepted reference standards. Evi-dence type 2a.
Two trials evaluated antacids versus placebo for symptomrelief, and reported no statistical differences betweenthe groups [69,73]. Two trials evaluating 74 patients Therapeutic management: available evidence [73,74], which compared antacids and placebo for the The primary treatment objectives are the alleviation of healing of oesophagitis found no statistical differences symptoms, the healing of mucosal lesions and the between the two groups.
prevention of recurrence and complications. From thepractical point of view the delegates were asked todiscuss and make recommendations, on the basis of the There was only a small amount of data comparing available evidence and their personal experience, for the antacids alone with an antacids–alginate combination.
following issues: (i) the behavioural approach (diet andlifestyle changes); (ii) the role of antacids, alginates and Two evaluable studies involving 81 patients [69,75] sucralfate; (iii) pharmacological therapy [prokinetics, suggested that the antacids–alginate combination had a similar efficacy to antacids alone in improving symptoms, 2 receptor antagonists (H2 RA), PPI]; (iv) maintenance therapy (prokinetics, histamine H but these results were not statistically significant. One trial PPI); (v) pharmacological versus surgical therapy; (vi) was excluded because it did not assess the outcomes surgical therapy: indications; (vii) surgical treatment: specified for the consensus meeting (retrosternal pain) [76].
open or laparoscopic; (viii) the treatment of Helicobacterpylori infection; and (ix) endoscopic treatment.
Two trials compared H2 RA plus alginate with regularantacids–alginate in heartburn relief of 249 GORD Behavioural approach: diet and lifestyle changes patients [77,78]. Forty per cent of the H2 RA group We found 14 randomized controlled trials on this topic.
reported symptom improvement compared with 21% in None of them fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The reasons the antacid group. Both trials showed a trend in favour of for exclusion were: assessment of healthy volunteers, H2 RA therapy, and revealed a statistically significant assessment of outcomes that were not selected for the difference in favour of H2 RA therapy with an absolute consensus (oesophageal sphincter motor activity and difference in cure rates of 18% (95% CI 7–29%), number oesophageal pH), and one study was in German. We needed to treat equalled six (95% CI 3–14).
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 One trial compared H2 RA with antacid therapy for doubtful whether additional data will ever be heartburn relief and the healing of oesophagitis, and reported. Regarding sucralfate therapy, the data showed that H2 RA treatment was superior to antacid are not sufficient to allow a conclusion over its therapy [79].
efficacy. Evidence type 2.
One trial that compared H2 RA plus alginate with H2 RA Pharmacological therapy therapy alone found no difference in the relief of Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms and endoscopy- symptoms in GORD patients at 6 weeks, although a negative reflux disease statistically significant effect in favour of the combination Short-term treatment (1–12 weeks) should be given for therapy was reported at 12 weeks [80].
GORD-like symptoms and endoscopy-negative refluxdisease (ENRD) [83]: empirical and ENRD treatment.
One trial including 141 patients evaluated sucralfate gelversus placebo in patients with non-erosive GORD, and Prokinetics (cisapride, domperidone and metoclopramide) versus reported that sucralfate gel was significantly better than placebo in the treatment of patients with GORD [81].
Prokinetics are effective for heartburn relief (day andnight time) when compared with placebo [52,84–86].
One trial that assessed self-directed treatment forepisodic heartburn compared famotidine with antacids, Cisapride is the prokinetic drug that was studied most both at different doses, with placebo in patients with extensively for GORD treatment; however, it has recently intermittent heartburn. It showed that famotidine and been withdrawn from many markets.
antacids provided more rapid and more frequent heart-burn relief than placebo [82].
H2 Receptor antagonists versus placeboH2 RA are effective for heartburn relief (day and night In conclusion, there is a paucity of evidence time) and for an overall improvement when compared addressing antacids and antacids–alginate com- with placebo [84,87–93].
binations. There is some evidence that anta-cids–alginate combinations are effective for the Meta-analysis showed that H2 RA improved heartburn short-term control of symptoms in patients with relief at night time compared with placebo in 23% on GORD, but therapeutic gain is small. It is empirical treatment and 20% of ENRD patients. In Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal refluxdisease-like symptoms and endoscopy-negative reflux disease.
Comparison: 02 H2RA versus placeboOutcome: 01 Pain free at night Relative risk (random) Relative risk (random) 01 Empirical treatment 0.56 [0.38, 0.84] 0.89 [0.68, 1.17] 0.79 [0.66, 0.94] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.77 [0.63, 0.94] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 3.51 df = 2 P = 0.1732Test for overall effect = −2.54 P = 0.0102 Treatment of ENRD 0.80 [0.59, 1.08] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.80 [0.59, 1.08] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 0.00 df = 0Test for overall effect = −1.45 P = 0.15 Short-term empirical treatment in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms. Histamine H2 receptor antagonist versus placebo.
Outcome: pain free at night. CI, Confidence interval; ENRD, endoscopy-negative reflux disease; H2RA, histamine H2 receptor antagonist.
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease Cohen et al.
Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal refluxdisease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease.
Comparison: 02 H2RA versus placebo 02 Pain free at day Relative risk (random) Relative risk (random) 01 Empirical treatment 0.77 [0.60, 0.99] 0.50 [0.19, 1.33] 0.93 [0.72, 1.19] 0.77 [0.66, 0.90] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.80 [0.71, 0.89] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 2.67 df = 3 P = 0.4455Test for overall effect = −3.92 P = 0.0001 02 Treatment of ENRD 0.75 [0.61, 0.93] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.75 [0.61, 0.93] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 0.00 df = 0Test for overall effect = −2.66 P = 0.008 Short-term empirical treatment in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms. Histamine H2 receptor antagonist versus placebo.
Outcome: painfree in day. CI, Confidence interval; ENRD, endoscopy-negative reflux disease; H2 RA, histamine H2 receptor antagonist; PPI, protonpump inhibitor.
addition, in relation to heartburn relief in the day time, ment). In ENRD patients, PPI improved heartburn relief the improvement was 20 and 25%, respectively.
in 28% compared with prokinetics, therefore whenthey are compared with H2 RA the differences are of statistically borderline significance [52,99,102–110] 2 RA improved overall symptom relief compared with placebo in 28% on empirical treatment, but in ENRD (Figs 6–8).
patients there were no significant differences betweenthe treatment groups (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
No significant difference in efficacy between H2 RAand prokinetics was demonstrated in the trial reviewed Proton pump inhibitors versus placebo PPI are effective for heartburn relief (day and night time)and for achieving an overall improvement when compared Proton pump inhibitors versus proton pump inhibitors with placebo [49,50,52,94–100,102].
Omeprazole 20 mg was better than 10 mg in heartburnrelief [54,99,111]. There were no differences between PPI improve overall symptom relief in 37% compared esomeprazole 40 mg and esomeprazole 20 mg or between with placebo in ENRD patients (Fig. 4). PPI improve esomeprazole 40 mg versus omeprazole 20 mg in heart- heartburn relief in 63 and 32% compared with placebo burn relief [112].
both on empirical treatment and ENRD patients (Fig. 5).
In conclusion, the evidence indicates that PPI PPI are effective at achieving wellbeing and satisfaction are superior to H2 RA in achieving an overall to a level similar to that observed in a healthy population improvement in empirical treatment and in when compared with placebo [101].
ENRD patients. In relation to heartburn relief,PPI are more effective than H2 RA and Proton pump inhibitors versus H2 receptor antagonists and versus prokinetics in empirical treatment, and PPI seem to be superior to H2 RA in ENRD PPI are significantly more effective than H2 RA and patients. There were no differences between prokinetics for heartburn relief and overall symptom PPI. Omeprazole 20 mg was better than ome- improvement in studied patients (as empirical treat- prazole 10 mg. Evidence type 1.
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal refluxdisease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease.
Comparison: 02 H2RA versus placeboOutcome: 03 Overall improvement Relative risk (random) Relative risk (random) 01 Empirical treatment 0.78 [0.63, 0.97] 0.68 [0.61, 0.76] 0.58 [0.42, 0.75] 0.79 [0.70, 0.89] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.72 [0.63, 0.81] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 6.67 df = 3 P = 0.0831 Test for overall effect = −5.30 P < 0.00001 02 Treatment of ENRD 0.20 [0.06, 0.66] 0.65 [0.46, 0.92] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.41 [0.13, 1.33] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 3.78 df = 1 P = 0.052 Test for overall effect = −1.48 P = 0.14 Short-term empirical treatment in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms. Histamine H2 receptor antagonist versusplacebo. Outcome: overall improvement. CI, Confidence interval; ENRD, endoscopy-negative reflux disease; H2 RA, histamine H2 receptorantagonist.
Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal refluxdisease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease.
Comparison: 01 PPI versus placeboOutcome: 01 Overall improvement Relative risk (random) Relative risk (random) 01 Endoscopy negative reflux disease 0.75 [0.58, 0.96] 0.56 [0.47, 0.67] 0.64 [0.50, 0.83] 0.58 [0.39, 0.88] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.63 [0.55, 0.72] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 3.55 df = 3 P = 0.3149 Test for overall effect = −6.83 P < 0.00001 Short-term empirical treatment in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms. Proton pump inhibitor versus placebo. Outcome:overall improvement. CI, Confidence interval; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease Cohen et al.
Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal refluxdisease-like symptoms and endoscopy-negative reflux disease.
Comparison: 01 PPI versus placeboOutcome: 02 Heartburn relief Relative risk (random) Relative risk (random) 01 Empirical treatment 0.35 [0.26, 0.46] 0.38 [0.32, 0.46] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.37 [0.32, 0.44] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 0.42 df = 1 P = 0.5189 Test for overall effect = −12.73 P < 0.0000102 Endoscopy negative reflux disease 0.58 [0.47, 0.73] 0.94 [0.79, 1.11] 0.59 [0.51, 0.68] 0.73 [0.65, 0.82] 0.65 [0.59, 0.73] 0.56 [0.36, 0.86] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.68 [0.59, 0.78] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 22.09 df = 5 P = 0.0005Test for overall effect = −5.36 P < 0.00001 Short-term treatment endoscopy-negative reflux disease. Proton pump inhibitor versus placebo. Outcome: heartburn relief. CI, Confidence interval;PPI, proton pump inhibitor.
Short-term treatment in patients with oesophagitis omeprazole 20 mg, rabeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole Prokinetics versus placebo 40 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg and omeprazole 40 mg, or Only one trial [113] was found, which did not show any pantoprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg for oesophagitis statistically significant differences in the healing of healing, symptom relief and heartburn relief. Omeprazole 40 mg was better than omeprazole 20 mg, and pantoprazole30 mg was better than pantoprazole 15 mg for oesophagitis healing at 4 weeks [119–129]. Omeprazole 20 mg was more 2 Receptor antagonists versus placebo effective than omeprazole 10 mg in healing oesophagitis 2 RA were effective for the healing of oesophagitis and the relief of heartburn compared with placebo [114].
[50]. Two trials reported that esomeprazole 40 mg producedgreater healing rates at 8 weeks and greater heartburn resolution rates than omeprazole 20 mg (typical RR for 2 Receptor antagonists versus H2 receptor antagonists There were no differences between famotidine 40 mg and healing oesophagitis 1.10, 95% CI 1.08–1.13). One trial famotidine 20 mg a day, between ranitidine and cimeti- reported that esomeprazole 40 mg produced a greater dine, or between ranitidine 150 mg twice a day versus healing rate than lansoprazole 30 mg (RR 1.04, 95% CI ranitidine 150 mg four times a day [114,115].
1.02–1.06). Esomeprazole 40 mg has been shown to be moreeffective than omeprazole 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg in Proton pump inhibitors versus H 2 receptor antagonists PPI were more effective than H2 RA for the healing ofoesophagitis [116–118].
Although statistically significant, it has been debatedwhether these differences are clinically relevant. (No doubt PPI improved the healing of oesophagitis in 46% substantial differences in efficacy prevail in LA grade C and D cases in favour of esomeprazole) [130–132].
2 RA (95% CI 55–39%; Fig. 9).
Proton pump inhibitors versus proton pump inhibitors In conclusion, evidence shows that in patients There were no significant differences between omeprazole with oesophagitis a course of PPI or H2 RA is 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg, rabeprazole 20 mg and effective in healing oesophagitis. PPI are sig- Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal refluxdisease-like symptoms and endoscopy-negative reflux disease.
04 PPI versus H2RA 01 Heartburn remission Relative risk (random) Relative risk (random) 01 Empirical treatment 0.60 [0.46, 0.78] 0.71 [0.63, 0.80] 0.49 [0.37, 0.66] 0.74 [0.63, 0.86] 0.75 [0.67, 0.85] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.69 [0.61, 0.77] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 8.95 df = 4 P = 0.0623Test for overall effect = −6.60 P < 0.00001 02 Endoscopy negative reflux disease 0.83 [0.54, 1.27] 0.49 [0.32, 0.77] 0.88 [0.75, 1.02] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.74 [0.53, 1.03] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 5.66 df = 2 P = 0.059 Test for overall effect = −1.78 P = 0.08 Short-term treatment endoscopy-negative reflux disease. Proton pump inhibitor versus histamine H2 receptor antagonist. Outcome: Heartburnremission. CI, Confidence interval; H2 RA, histamine H2 receptor antagonist; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.
nificantly better than H2 RA in healing oeso- effective than placebo in controlling disease phagitis and in achieving heartburn relief.
manifestations. Evidence type 1.
Among different PPI, esomeprazole has beenshown to be statistically more effective thanomeprazole or lansoprazole in healing oeso- Patients with oesophagitis phagitis, an effect that is most predominant in Proton pump inhibitors versus placebo LA grade C and D cases. Evidence type 1.
PPI (omeprazole, esomeprazole) are more effectivethan placebo at maintaining the healing of oesophagitis Maintenance therapy and the patient free of heartburn at one month Patients without oesophagitis (endoscopy-negative reflux disease) Proton pump inhibitors versus placebo (on demand)PPI as ‘on demand' therapy are more effective than Proton pump inhibitors versus proton pump inhibitors placebo in maintaining heartburn remission [133,134].
Evidence has shown no differences between rabeprazole10 mg Proton pump inhibitors at different doses or rabeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 20 mg [140], Omeprazole 20 mg is better than omeprazole 10 mg as ‘on lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg [141], demand' therapy at maintaining heartburn remission lansoprazole 30 mg and omeprazole 20 mg [141], panto- prazole 40 mg and omeprazole 20 mg [141], pantoprazole20 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg [142] in maintain- Two trials [135,136], which compared esomeprazole and omeprazole were excluded because they assessed only remission. One trial showed that both esomeprazole direct medical costs.
40 mg and esomeprazole 20 mg were effective in main-taining the healing of oesophagitis [137,138] and In conclusion, evidence shows that in patients that omeprazole 20 mg was better than omeprazole with ENRD, ‘on demand' PPI therapy is more 10 mg [121].
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease Cohen et al.
Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal refluxdisease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease.
Comparison: 04 PPI versus H2RAOutcome: 02 Overall improvement Relative risk (random) Relative risk (random) 01 Empirical treatment 0.29 [0.17, 0.51] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.29 [0.17, 0.51] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 0.00 df = 0 Test for overall effect = −4.34 P = 0.0000 02 Endoscopy negative reflux disease 0.83 [0.76, 0.91] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.83 [0.76, 0.91] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 0.00 df = 0 Test for overall effect = −4.03 P=0.0001 Short-term treatment endoscopy-negative reflux disease. Proton pump inhibitor versus histamine H2 receptor antagonist. Outcome: overallimprovement. CI, Confidence interval; H2 RA, histamine H2 receptor antagonist; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.
Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal refluxdisease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease.
Comparison: 05 PPI versus prokineticOutcome: 01 Heartburn remission Relative risk (random) Relative risk (random) 01 Empirical treatment 0.67 [0.55, 0.82] 0.40 [0.30, 0.54] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.53 [0.32, 0.87] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 7.94 df = 1 P = 0.0048Test for overall effect = −2.48 P = 0.01 02 Endoscopy-negative reflux disease 0.72 [0.56, 0.92] Subtotal (95% CI) 0.72 [0.56, 0.92] Test for heterogeneity chi-square = 0.00 df = 0Test for overall effect = −2.59 P = 0.009 Favours prokinetic Short-term treatment endoscopy-negative reflux disease. Proton pump inhibitor versus prokinetics. Outcome: Heartburn remission. CI, Confidenceinterval; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.
One study showed that esomeprazole 20 mg was more One study showed that esomeprazole 20 mg maintained a 12% higher proportion of patients in remission than did remission in patients with healed reflux oesophagitis lansoprazole 15 mg, over the 6-month course of treatment (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06–1.19) [143]. In a recent Cochrane Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 Short-term treatment in patients with oesophagitis Comparison: 01 PPIs versus H2RAsOutcome: 01 Healing of the oesophagitis 0.64 [0.52, 0.79] 0.37 [0.19, 0.72] 0.35 [0.21, 0.60] 0.54 [0.45, 0.66] Total events: 90 (treatment), 167 (control)Test for heterogeneity: Chi2 = 6.06, df = 2 (P = 0.05), I2 = 67.0%Test for overall effect: Z = 6.25 (P < 0.00001) Favours treatment Short-term treatment in patients with oesophagitis. Proton pump inhibitor versus histamine H2 receptor antagonist. Outcome: Healing of theoesophagitis. H2 RA, histamine H2 receptor antagonist; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.
systematic review, Donnellan et al. [144] stated that One study [149], which compared surgical therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg should be at least as effective as omeprazole 20 mg a day, showed that clinical remission at omeprazole 20 mg.
3 years was higher in the surgical group. However, whenthe dose of omeprazole was adjusted (40–60 mg a day) as Proton pump inhibitors versus H needed, the relapse rates were more similar between the 2 receptor antagonists PPI are better than H 2 RA for heartburn remission at 12 months, keeping the patient free of heartburn at 12 weeksand for preventing a relapse of oesophagitis at 24 weeks Another study compared continuous therapy (included antacids and ranitidine), symptomatic medical therapy(antacids and ranitidine if symptoms could not be H2 Receptor antagonists versus placebo controlled) and surgical therapy [150]. The study was H2 RA are better than placebo for maintaining heartburn conducted to assess pulmonary function at one year, and remission and preventing relapse of oesophagitis at 6 concluded that there were no differences between the months [147].
three groups for this outcome.
In conclusion, evidence shows that continuous Spechler et al. [151] assessed long-term outcomes in the PPI therapy is superior to placebo. PPI were follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial [152].
The authors reported that GORD symptoms were 2 RA for maintenance treatment of patients with oesophagitis. There were no significantly less severe in the surgical treatment group significant differences between omeprazole and when drug therapy was discontinued, but not when rabeprazole, or between pantoprazole and patients were permitted to take antireflux medications.
lansoprazole. However, 20 mg a day of esome- During a follow-up period of 10–13 years, the authors prazole was better than 15 mg a day of found that patients with complicated GORD who were lansoprazole at maintaining endoscopic remis- treated with antireflux surgery were significantly less sion. At the end of the inclusion period of likely to take antireflux medications regularly, and when studies for this consensus there were no those medications were discontinued, their GORD other papers comparing esomeprazole with symptoms were significantly less severe than those of other PPI for maintenance therapy. Evidence medically treated patients. There was no significant difference between the groups in the rates of neoplasticand peptic complications of GORD, physical and mentalwellbeing scores, and satisfaction with antireflux therapy.
Pharmacological versus surgical therapyOne study showed that surgical therapy produced higher Surgical treatment: open surgery versus laparoscopy healing rates at 2 years compared with medical treatment There is good evidence (type 1) that both laparoscopic (ranitidine) in asthmatic patients [148].
and open surgery are effective methods in the operative Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease Cohen et al.
treatment of GORD in the short term, and that they produce a significant improvement in patients' gastro- The following were considered criteria justifying the intestinal symptoms and quality of life. The laparoscopic indication of endoscopy: (i) in all patients over 45 years of approach is better than open surgery when considering age with typical symptoms; (ii) in patients less than 45 postoperative pain, the use of analgesia, time of hospitaliza- years of age with typical symptoms that fail to respond to tion, and ventilatory function [153,154]. Evidence showed a trial of PPI therapy (therapeutic diagnostic test); (iii) in that persistent severe dysphagia was more common after patients with alarm symptoms (dysphagia, odynophagia, laparoscopic antireflux surgery than after open surgery. The anaemia, weight loss, haemorrhage); (iv) in patients with results of a systematic review of the literature showed that long-standing symptoms ( > 5 years). Voting: 94.4% there were no significant differences between laparoscopicand open fundoplication regarding the recurrence of GORD, dysphagia, bloating and reoperation rates [155].
Biopsy of the oesophagus is not indicated if noendoscopic lesions are found. Voting: 94.4% Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infectionThere is good evidence (type 1) showing that H. pylori infection has no effect on GORD, and that its eradication The indications below were suggested for ambulatory, 24- does not worsen GORD symptoms [156,157].
h oesophageal pHmetry: (i) patients with no response toPPI (to be performed without discontinuing antireflux Endoscopic treatment medication). Voting: 100%; (ii) non-erosive disease with There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials to no response to therapy (to be performed with patient assess the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment in comparison with medical or surgical therapy.
(iii) atypical GORD manifestations (respiratory, ear noseand throat, chest pain). Voting: 100%; (iv) recurrence of symptoms after antireflux surgery and in the absence of lesions in the oesophageal mucosa. Voting: 100% The methodological analysis of the evidence available onthe various diagnostic tests for GORD shows that none of them could be considered highly effective. There is no The following are considered indications for manometry gold standard test for the diagnosis of GORD.
in GORD: (i) preoperative study to rule out any primarymotor disorder. Voting: 94.4%; (ii) Before placement of a As a consequence, the decisions taken by the consensus pH electrode. Voting: 100% on diagnosis of GORD had to be voted, as expert opinion.
The diagnostic group suggested the following indications for GORD is a recurrent condition related to the retrograde contrast radiology in GORD: (i) patients with alarm flow of gastric contents with or without duodenal symptoms, especially dysphagia. Voting: 94.4%; (ii) patients contents towards the oesophagus or adjacent organs. It with GORD before antireflux surgery. Voting 94.4%; presents a varied spectrum of symptoms that can impair (iii) after antireflux surgery in patients with symptomatic the patient's quality of life and it may present with or relapse. Voting: 78.5% without tissue damage. Voting: 100% acceptance This is considered an investigational method. There is The group that worked on diagnosis defined the typical currently no evidence warranting its use in the routine symptoms in order to speak in similar terms and to clinical management of GORD. Voting: 100% compare outcomes in the future. The following issueswere agreed upon: Bile reflux monitoringThis was considered to be a costly method, with many technical difficulties. There is no evidence warranting its Ascending retrosternal burning sensation. For the diag- use in clinical practice. Voting: 94.4% nosis of GORD, it should be present two or more times aweek, for more than 3 months during the past year, not Diagnostic: therapeutic test with a proton pump inhibitor necessarily continuous. Voting: 71.4% As stated by Numans et al. [158], ‘although there may bediagnostic uncertainty, a PPI trial might be reasonable in patients without alarm symptoms or other suspected Effortless return of the gastric contents into the complications of GORD [132,159]. On the other hand, oesophagus and at times, into the mouth. Voting: 100% the decision to begin with a PPI has long-term economic Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 and clinical implications because responding patients will Available proton pump inhibitors probably continue treatment even though a diagnosis has Proton pump inhibitor Full daily dose (mg) not been clearly established. Until better methods are available to establish a confident diagnosis, the empirical treatment approach (and selection of the dose and type of acid-suppressing agents) should be individualized on the basis of the clinical setting, the response to therapy, andjudicious diagnostic testing' [132].
Antacids, alginates and sucralfate Considering the previous statement, the consensus Delegates unanimously agreed (100%) that the use of suggested the following indications: (i) to perform PPI these medications could be considered in special situa- test on patients under 45 years of age with typical tions (such as the occurrence of adverse events with H2 symptoms; (ii) as there was no agreement on the optimal RA or PPI) to provide transient symptomatic relief (grade dose or duration of PPI therapy, professionals are free to D recommendation).
choose the dosage, the duration of the therapeutic trialand the criteria applied to interpret the patient's Pharmacological therapy response. Voting: 84.4% Short course treatmentThere is good evidence (type 1) supporting the use of Diagnostic management PPI instead of H2 RA or prokinetics for the initial The following measures are recommended: management of patients with erosive and non-erosiveGORD. Doses and drugs are described in Table 11 (gradeA recommendation).
Patients under 45 years with typical symptoms(i) Diagnostic therapeutic testing with PPI and sympto-matic re-evaluation. Voting: 100% (there was no agree- PPI should be the initial therapy of choice (4–8 weeks).
ment on dosages and test duration); (ii) if there is a good Esomeprazole can be recommended as the first choice response, discontinue treatment and evaluate at follow- compared with lansoprazole and omeprazole, but more up. Voting: 100%; (iii) if there is no response: ensure evidence that compares this drug with other PPI was not compliance with treatment and if a lack of response is available at the date of this consensus (grade A recom- confirmed, the patient should undergo endoscopy. Voting: H2 RA and prokinetics are considered to be second-linetherapy (grade A recommendation).
Patients over 45 years with typical symptomsInitial endoscopy. Voting: 100% Maintenance therapyThere is good evidence (type 1) supporting the use of Therapeutic managementThe following measures are recommended: PPI instead of H2 RA or prokinetics in the maintenancetreatment of patients with GORD (with or withouterosive oesophagitis). Consequently, patients needing Behavioural approach: diet and lifestyle changes ongoing treatment should be offered any PPI as a first Diet and lifestyle changes were defined according to choice treatment for maintenance. Esomeprazole has Moraes-Filho et al. [12] (Table 10); on the basis of this, been shown to be better than lansoprazole at main- the delegates agreed unanimously (100%) that dietary tenance dosage in one trial, but evidence that compares esomeprazole with other PPI was not yet available at the decided by each physician in the light of his/her clinical time of this consensus, so the PPI of choice could be experience on a case-by-case basis (grade D recommen- esomeprazole or it could also be prescribed in accordance with the physician's personal preference (grade Arecommendation).
Behavioural modifications in the treatment of gastro- oesophageal reflux disease [12] Pharmacological versus surgical therapy Elevation of the headboard of the bed (15 cm) Surgical intervention is an alternative approach compar- Ingestion of the following foods in moderation and based on symptom correlation: able to pharmacological therapy in terms of efficacy fatty foods, citrus, coffee, chocolate, alcoholic and carbonated beverage, mint,tomato-based products (grade A recommendation).
Special care with ‘at risk' medications: anticholinergics, theophylline, tricyclic antidepressants, calcium antagonists, b-adrenergic agonists, alendronate Avoidance of large meals Surgical treatment: indications Drastic reduction in, or cessation of, smoking The evidence reviewed showed that the individuals who Reduction of body weight, of overweight respond to medical therapy but who are unable or Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease Cohen et al.
unwilling to continue on it are good candidates for surgery consensus on gastroesophageal reflux disease: proposals for assessment, (grade A recommendation). It was agreed by the classification, and management. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:241–248.
Gonzalez O, Orozco L, Landaza´bal G, Alvarado J, Hani A, Cardona HJ, delegates (71.4%) that patients who fail to respond to et al. First Colombian Consensus on gastroesophageal reflux disease pharmacological therapy are poor candidates for surgery.
[in Spanish]. Revista Colombiana de Gastroenterologı´a 2003; 18(suppl 1):4–60.
Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical Surgical treatment: open surgery versus laparoscopy literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the Laparoscopy is recommended; however, the surgeon's results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence- experience and his/her technical expertise are elements Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 271:703–707.
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. How to use an article about therapy or that must also be taken into account (grade A recom- prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1993; 270:2598–2601.
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 4.2 for Windows.
Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2002 (www.cochrane.org).
Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, Haynes RB, Dawes M.
The majority of the delegates (78.5%) shared the view that, Oxford Centre for evidence-based Medicine. Levels of evidence; May once the diagnosis of H. pylori infection has been made, the De Meester TR, Wang CJ, Wernly JA, Pellegrini CA, Little AG, bacterium should be eradicated according to established Klementschitsch P, et al. Technique, indications, and clinical use of 24 hour treatment guidelines (grade D recommendation).
oesophageal pH monitoring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1980; 79:656–670.
Schindlbeck NE, Heinrich C, Konig A, Dendorfer A, Pace F, Muller-LissnerSA. Optimal thresholds, sensitivity, and specificity of long-term pH-metry Endoscopic treatment for the detection of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology Endoscopic treatment is still considered to be experi- 1987; 93:85–90.
Fuchs KH, DeMeester TR, Albertucci M. Specificity and sensitivity of mental. Its use is not recommended in routine practice, objective diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surgery 1987; although its use is appropriate in clinical trials (grade D Vitale GC, Sadek S, Tulley FM, Rimmer AR, Hunter BE, Phelan J, CuschieriA. Computerized 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: a new ambulatorytechnique using radiotelemetry. J Lab Clin Med 1985; 105:686–693.
Weiser HF. Measuring gastroesophageal reflux. Quantification using solid The authors would like to thank Mrs Nancy Feijoo, Mr Alfredo Ballo´n and Mrs state long-term pH measurement [in German]. Fortschr Med 1987; Lizbeth Bachet for their secretary and administrative work, Mrs Ana Paula Chernic and Ms Maria Noel Piccardo for their help in searching for the evidence, Dr Jorgensen F, Elsborg L, Hesse B. The diagnostic value of computerized Nicola´s Gonza´lez for his help in searching for the evidence and writing the short-term oesophageal pH-monitoring in suspected gastro-oesophageal references of the article.
reflux. Scand J Gastroenterol 1998; 23:363–368.
Bollschweiler E, Feussner H, Holscher AH, Siewert JR. pH Monitoring: thegold standard in detection of gastro-intestinal reflux disease? Dysphagia1993; 8:118–121.
Klauser AG, Schindlbeck NE, Muller-Lissner SA. Symptoms in gastro- Locke GR III, Talley NJ, Fett SL, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ III. Prevalence oesophageal reflux disease. Lancet 1990; 335:205–208.
and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study Wong WM, Lam KF, Lai KC, Hui WM, Hu WH, Lam CL, et al. A validated in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology 1997; 112:1448–1456.
symptoms questionnaire (Chinese GERDQ) for the diagnosis of gastro- Jones RB, Lydeard SE, Hobbs FD, Kenkre JE, Williams EI, Jones SJ, et al.
oesophageal reflux disease in the Chinese population. Aliment Pharmacol Dyspepsia in England and Scotland. Gut 1990; 31:401–405.
Ther 2003; 17:1407–1413.
Moraes-Filho JPP. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: prevalence and Kitapcioglu G, Mandiracioglu A, Bor S. Psychometric and methodological management in Brazil. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2004; 18:23–26.
characteristics of a culturally adjusted gastroesophageal reflux disease Chiocca JC, Olmos JA, Salis GB, Soifer LO, Higa R, Marcolongo M.
questionnaire. Dis Esophagus 2004; 17:228–234.
Prevalence, clinical spectrum and atypical symptoms of gastro- Gomez-Escudero O, Remes-Troche JM, Ruiz JC, Pelaez-Luna M, oesophageal reflux in Argentina: a nationwide population-based study.
Schmulson MJ, Valdovinos Diaz MA. Diagnostic usefulness of the Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 22:331–342.
Carlsson–Dent questionnaire in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) Revicki DA, Wood M, Maton PN, Sorensen S. The impact of [in Spanish]. Rev Gastroenterol Mex 2004; 69:16–23.
gastroesophageal reflux disease on health-related quality of life. Am J Med Carlsson R, Dent J, Bolling-Sternevald E, Johnsson F, Junghard O, Lauritsen K, et al. The usefulness of a structured questionnaire in the Wiklund I. Review of the quality of life and burden of illness in assessment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scand gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Dis 2004; 22:108–114.
J Gastroenterol 1998; 33:1023–1029.
Prasad M, Rentz AM, Revicki DA. The impact of treatment for gastro- Klauser AG, Schindlbeck NE, Muller-Lissner SA. Esophageal 24-h pH oesophageal reflux disease on health-related quality of life.
monitoring: is prior manometry necessary for correct positioning of the Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21:769–790.
electrode? Am J Gastroenterol 1990; 85:1463–1467.
Dent J, Brun J, Fendrick AM, Fennerty MB, Janssens J, Kahrilas PJ, et al. An Carlsson R, Dent J, Bolling-Sternevald E, Johnsson F, Junghard O, evidence-based appraisal of reflux disease management – The Genval Lauritsen K, et al. The usefulness of a structured questionnaire in the Workshop Report. Gut 1999; 44 (suppl 2):S1–S16.
assessment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scand Moss SF, Arnold R, Tytgat GN, Spechler SJ, Delle-Fave G, Rosin D, et al.
J Gastroenterol 1998; 33:1023–1029.
Consensus statement for management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: Shaw MJ, Talley NJ, Beebe TJ, Rockwood T, Carlsson R, Adlis S, et al. Initial result of workshop meeting at Yale University School of Medicine, validation of a diagnostic questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux Department of Surgery, 16 and 17 November 1997. J Clin Gastroenterol disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96:52–57.
1998; 27:6–12.
Johnson F, Joelsson B, Gudmundsson K, Greiff L. Symptoms and Thomson D, Chiba N, Armstrong D, Tougas G, Hunt RH. The second endoscopic findings in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Canadian gastroesophageal reflux disease consensus: moving forward to Scand J Gastroenterol 1987; 22:714–718.
new concepts. Can J Gastroenterol 1998; 12:551–556.
Richter JE. Typical and atypical presentations of gastroesophageal reflux Jian R, Galmiche J-P, Bretagne J-F, editors. Franco-Belgian Consensus disease. The role of esophageal testing in diagnosis and management.
Conference. Gastro-esophageal reflux in adults: diagnosis and treatment.
Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1996; 25:75–102.
Gastroenterologie Clin Biol 1999; 23 (1 bis):S1–S319.
Ottignon Y, Deschamps JP, Voigt JJ, Cassigneul J, Lassegue A, Pascal JP, Moraes-Filho JP, Cecconello I, Gama-Rodrigues J, Castro L, Henry MA, Carayon P. Esophageal pHmetry: comparison with clinical, endoscopic Meneghelli UG, Quigley E, Brazilian Consensus Group. Brazilian and histological data. Prospective study in 43 patients with suspected Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 gastroesophageal reflux [in French]. Presse Med 1983; 12: Pollmann H, Zillessen E, Pohl J, Rosemeyer D, Abucar A, Armbrecht U, et al. Effect of elevated head position in bed in therapy of gastroesophageal Schindlbeck NE, Wiebecke B, Klauser AG, Voderholzer WA, Muller-Lissner reflux [in German]. Z Gastroenterol 1996; 34 (suppl 2):93–99.
SA. Diagnostic value of histology in non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux Kjellin A, Ramel S, Rossner S, Thor K. Gastroesophageal reflux in obese disease. Gut 1996; 39:151–154.
patients is not reduced by weight reduction. Scand J Gastroenterol 1996; Kasapidis P, Xynos E, Mantides A, Chrysos E, Demonakou M, Nikolopoulos N, Vassilakis JS. Differences in manometry and 24-h ambulatory pH-metry Pehl C, Pfeiffer A, Wendl B, Kaess H. The effect of decaffeination of coffee between patients with and without endoscopic or histological on gastro-esophageal reflux in patients with reflux disease. Aliment esophagitis in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1993; Pharmacol Ther 1997; 11:483–486.
Washington N, Steele RJ, Jackson SJ, Washington C, Bush D. Patterns of Narayani RI, Burton MP, Young GS. Utility of esophageal biopsy in food and acid reflux in patients with low-grade oesophagitis – the role of an the diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease. Dis Esophagus 2003; anti-reflux agent. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; 12:53–58.
Penagini R, Mangano M, Bianchi PA. Effect of increasing the fat content Nandurkar S, Talley NJ, Martin CJ, Ng T, Adams S. Esophageal histology but not the energy load of a meal on gastro-esophageal reflux and lower does not provide additional useful information over clinical assessment in esophageal sphincter motor function. Gut 1998; 42:330–333.
identifying reflux patients presenting for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
Pehl C, Waizenhoefer A, Wendl B, Schmidt T, Schepp W, Pfeiffer A. Effect Dig Dis Sci 2000; 45:217–224.
of low and high fat meals on lower esophageal sphincter motility and Funch-Jensen P, Kock K, Christensen LA, Fallingborg J, Kjaergaard JJ, gastroesophageal reflux in healthy subjects. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; Andersen SP, Teglbjaerg PS. Microscopic appearance of the esophageal mucosa in a consecutive series of patients submitted to upper endoscopy.
Wright RA, Goldsmith LJ, Ameen V, D'Angelo A, Kirby SL, Prakash S.
Correlation with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms and macroscopic Transdermal nicotine patches do not cause clinically significant findings. Scand J Gastroenterol 1986; 21:65–69.
gastroesophageal reflux or esophageal motor disorders. Nicotine Tob Res Ismail-Beigi F, Horton PF, Pope C. Histological consequences of 1999; 1:371–374.
gastroesophageal reflux in man. Gastroenterology 1970; 58: Boekema PJ, Samsom M, Smout AJPM. Effect of coffee on gastro- esophageal reflux in patients with reflux disease and healthy controls.
Richter JE. Cost-effectiveness of testing for gastroesophageal reflux Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999; 11:1271–1276.
disease: what do patients, physicians, and health insurers want? Am J Med Pehl C, Pfeiffer A, Waizenhoefer A, Wendl B, Schepp W. Effect of caloric density of a meal on lower oesophageal sphincter motility and gastro- Johansson KE, Boeryd B, Fransson SG, Tibbling L. Oesophageal reflux oesophageal reflux in healthy subjects. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001; tests, manometry, endoscopy, biopsy, and radiology in healthy subjects.
Scand J Gastroenterol 1986; 21:399–406.
Colombo P, Mangano M, Bianchi PA, Penagini R. Effect of calories and fat Thompson JK, Koehler RE, Richter JE. Detection of gastroesophageal on postprandial gastro-oesophageal reflux. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002; reflux: value of barium studies compared with 24-hr pH monitoring.
Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162:621–626.
Mangano M, Colombo P, Bianchi PA, Penagini R. Fat and esophageal Bate CM, Riley SA, Chapman RW, Durnin AT, Taylor MD. Evaluation of sensitivity to acid. Dig Dis Sci 2002; 47:657–660.
omeprazole as a cost-effective diagnostic test for gastro-oesophageal Stanciu G, Benett JR. Alginate/antacid in the reduction of reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13:59–66.
gastroesophageal reflux. Lancet 1974; i:109–111.
Fass R, Ofman JJ, Gralnek IM, Johnson C, Camargo E, Sampliner RE, Laverdant C, Molinie C, Abgrall J, Baujat J-P, Mendez J. Use of a new Fennerty MB. Clinical and economic assessment of the omeprazole test in form of topaal in the painful symptomatology of gastroesophageal reflux patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease.
[in French]. Med Chir Dig 1986; 15:279–282.
Arch Intern Med 1999; 159:2161–2168.
Chatfield S. A comparison of the efficacy of the alginate preparation, Fass R. Empirical trials in treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Gaviscon Advance, with placebo in the treatment of gastroesophageal Dig Dis 2000; 18:20–26.
reflux disease. Curr Med Res Opin 1999; 15:152–159.
Juul-Hansen P, Rydning A, Jacobsen CD, Hansen T. High-dose proton Filoche B, Carteret E, Couzigou B, Guerder A, Lombard M, Pouts-Lajus P, pump inhibitors as a diagnostic test of gastro-oesophageal reflux et al. Randomized double-blind trial with a liquid suspension of alginate for disease in endoscopic-negative patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001; the treatment of pyrosis [in French]. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 1991; Schenk BE, Kuipers EJ, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Festen HP, Jansen EH, Graham DY, Patterson DJ. Double blind comparison of liquid antacid and Tuynman HA, et al. Omeprazole as a diagnostic tool in gastroesophageal placebo for the treatment of symptomatic reflux esophagitis. Dig Dis Sci reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1997; 92:1997–2000.
1983; 28:559–563.
Carlsson R, Dent J, Watts R, Riley S, Sheikh R, Hatlebakk J, et al. Gastro Farup PG, Weberg R, Berstad A, Wetterhus S, Dahlberg O, Dybdahl J, oesophageal reflux disease in primary care: an international study of et al. Low dose antacids vs 400 mg cimetidine twice daily for reflux different treatment strategies with omeprazole. International GORD Study oesophagitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 1990; 25:315–320.
Group. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998; 10:119–124.
Graham DY, Lanza F, Dorsch ER. Symptomatic reflux esophagitis: a Galmiche JP, Barthelemy P, Hamelin B. Treating the symptoms of gastro double-blind controlled comparison of antacid and alginate. Curr Ther Res oesophageal reflux disease: a double-blind comparison of omeprazole and 1977; 22:653–658.
cisapride. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997; 11:765–773.
Barnardo DE, Lancaster-Smith M, Strickland ID, Wright JR. A double-blind Hatlebakk JG, Hyggen A, Madsen PH, Walle PO, Schulz T, Mowinckel P, controlled trial of ‘‘Gaviscon'' in patients with symptomatic gastro- et al. Heartburn treatment in primary care: randomised, double blind study esophageal reflux. Curr Med Res Opin 1975; 3:388–391.
for 8 weeks. BMJ 1999; 319:550–553.
Lennox B, Snell C, Lamb Y. Response of heartburn symptoms to a new Johnsson F, Weywadt L, Solhaug JH, Hernqvist H, Bengtsson L. One week cimetidine/alginate combination compared with an alginic acid/antacid.
omeprazole treatment in the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux Br J Clin Pract 1988; 42:503–505.
disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1998; 33:15–20.
Eriksen CA, Cheadle WG, Cranford CA, Cuschieri A. Combined Venables TL, Newland RD, Patel AC, Hole J, Wilcock C, Turbitt ML.
cimetidine–alginate antacid therapy versus single agent treatment for reflux Omeprazole 10 milligrams once daily, omeprazole 20 milligrams once daily, oesophagitis: results of prospective double-blind randomised clinical trial.
or ranitidine 150 milligrams twice daily, evaluated as initial therapy for the Ann Chir Gynaecol 1988; 77:133–137.
relief of symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in general Earnest D, Robinson M, Rodriguez-Stanley S, Ciociola AA, Jaffe P, Silver practice. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997; 32:965–973.
TM, et al. Managing heartburn at the ‘‘base'' of the GERD ‘‘iceberg'': Becker DJ, Sinclair J, Castell DO, Wu WC. A comparison of high and low effervescent ranitidine 150 mg bd provides faster and better heartburn fat meals on postprandial esophageal acid exposure. Am J Gastroenterol relief than antacids. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000; 14:911–918.
1989; 84:782–786.
Cooperative Oesophageal Group. Combination of cimetidine and alginic Katz LC, Just R, Castell DO. Body position affects recumbent postprandial acid: an improvement in the treatment of oesophageal reflux disease.
reflux. J Clin Gastroenterol 1994; 18:280–283.
Gut 1991; 32:819–822.
Mathus-Vliegen LM, Tytgat GN. Twenty-four-hour pH measurements in Simon B, Ravelli GP, Goffin H. Sucralfate gel versus placebo in patients morbid obesity: effects of massive overweight, weight loss and gastric with non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol distension. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996; 8:635–640.
Ther 1996; 3:441–446.
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease Cohen et al.
Simon TJ, Berlin RG, Gardner AH, Stauffer LA, Gould AL, Getson AJ.
nizatidine in a mixed patient population with erosive esophagitis or endoscopy- Self-directed treatment of intermittent heartburn: a randomised, negative reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96:2849–2857.
multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of antacid and Bardhan KD, Muller-Lissner S, Bigard MA, Porro GB, Ponce J, Hosie J, low doses of an H(2)-receptor antagonist (famotidine). Am J Ther 1995; et al. Symptomatic gastro-esophageal reflux disease: double blind controlled study of intermittent treatment with omeprazole or ranitidine.
van Pinxteren B, Numans ME, Bonis PA, Lau J. Short-term treatment with BMJ 1999; 318:502–507.
proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for Bardhan KD, Muller-Lissner S, Bigard MA, Porro GB, Ponce J, Hosie J, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative et al. Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (gerd): intermittent reflux disease, (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4.
treatment (it) with omeprazole (om) and ranitidine (ran) as a strategy for Oxford: Update Software; 2004.
management [Abstract]. Gastroenterology 1997; 112 (suppl):A65.
Bright-Asare P, El-Bassoussi M. Cimetidine, metoclopramide, or placebo in Bate CM, Green JR, Axon AT, Murray FE, Tildesley G, Emmas CE, Taylor the treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. J Clin Gastroenterol MD. Omeprazole is more effective than cimetidine for the relief of all grades 1980; 2:149–156.
of gastro-esophageal reflux disease-associated heartburn, irrespective of McCallum RW, Ippoliti AF, Cooney C, Sturdevant RAL. A controlled trial of the presence or absence of endoscopic oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol metoclopramide in symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. N Engl J Med Ther 1997; 11:755–763.
Talley NJ, Moore MG, Sprogis A, Katelaris P. Randomized controlled trial of Castell DO, Sigmund C Jr, Patterson D, Lambert R, Hasner D, Clyde C, pantoprazole versus ranitidine for the treatment of uninvestigated heartburn Zeldis JB. Cisapride 20 mg b.i.d. provides symptomatic relief of heartburn in primary care. Med J Aust 2002; 177:423–427.
and related symptoms of chronic mild to moderate gastroesophageal reflux Venables TL, Newland RD, Patel AC, Hole J, Wilcock C, Turbitt ML.
disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93:547–552.
Omeprazole 10 milligrams once daily, omeprazole 20 milligrams once daily, Hallerback B, Glise H, Johansson B, Rosseland AR, Hulten S, Carling L, or ranitidine 150 milligrams twice daily, evaluated as initial therapy for the Knapstad LJ. Gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms – clinical findings and relief of symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in general effect of ranitidine treatment. Eur J Surg 1998; 583 (suppl):6–13.
practice. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997; 32:965–973.
Rush DR, Stelmach WJ, Young TL, Kirchdoerfer LJ, Scott-Lennox J, Galmiche JP, Barthelemy P, Hamelin B. Treating the symptoms of gastro- Holverson HE, et al. Clinical effectiveness and quality of life with ranitidine oesophageal reflux disease: a double-blind comparison of omeprazole and vs. placebo in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients: a clinical cisapride. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997; 11:765–773.
experience network (CEN) study. J Fam Pract 1995; 41:126–136.
Maton PN, Orlando R, Joelsson B. Efficacy of omeprazole versus Riemann JF, Hobel W. Cimetidine suspension in patients with stage ranitidine for symptomatic treatment of poorly responsive acid reflux 0 gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1991; disease – a prospective, controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; Behar J, Brand DL, Brown FC, Castell DO, Cohen S, Crossley RJ, et al.
Wiklund I, Bardhan KD, Muller-Lissner S, Bigard MA, Bianchi Porro G, Cimetidine in the treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. A Ponce J, et al. Quality of life during acute and intermittent treatment of double blind controlled trial. Gastroenterology 1978; 74:441–448.
gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with omeprazole compared with Robinson M, Decktor DL, Stone RC, Pevelery M, Barden P, Moyer R, et al.
ranitidine. Results from a multicentre clinical trial. Ital J Gastroenterol Famotidine (20 mg) b.d. relieves gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms in Hepatol 1998; 30:19–27.
patients without erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1991; Armstrong D, Talley NJ, Lauritsen K, Moum B, Lind T, Tunturi-Hihnala H, et al. The role of acid suppression in patients with endoscopy-negative Sabesin SM, Berlin RG, Humphries TJ, Bradstreet DC, Walton-Bowen KL, reflux disease: the effect of treatment iwht esomeprazole or omeprazole.
Zaidi S. Famotidine relieves symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20:413–421.
and heals erosions and ulcerations. Results of a multicenter, placebo- Richter JE, Long JF. Cisapride for gastroesophageal reflux disease: controlled, dose-ranging study. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151:2394–2400.
a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; Sontag S, Robinson M, McCallum RW, Barwick KW, Nardi R. Ranitidine therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Results of a large double-blind Simon TJ, Berenson MM, Berlin RG, Snapinn S, Cagliola A. Randomized, trial. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147:1485–1491.
placebo-controlled comparison of famotidine 20 mg bid or 40 mg bid Johnsson F, Hatlebakk JG, Klintenberg AC, Roman J. Symptom-relieving in patients with erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1994; effect of esomeprazole 40 mg daily in patients with heartburn. Scand J Gastroenterol 2003; 38:347–353.
McCarty-Dawson D, Sue SO, Morrill B, Murdock RH Jr. Ranitidine versus Johnsson F, Hatlebakk JG, Klintenberg AC, Roman J, Toth E, Stubberod A, cimetidine in the healing of erosive esophagitis. Clin Therapeut 1996; et al. One-week esomeprazole treatment: an effective confirmatory test in patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scand J Farley A, Wruble LD, Humphries TJ, for the Rabeprazole Study Group.
Gastroenterol 2003; 38:354–359.
Rabeprazole versus ranitidine for the treatment of erosive Bate CM, Griffin SM, Keeling PWN, Axon AT, Dronfield MW, Chapman gastroesophageal reflux disease: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial.
RW, et al. Reflux symptom relief with omeprazole in patients without Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95:1894–1899.
unequivocal oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1996; 10:547–555.
Kawano S, Murata H, Tsuji S, Kubo M, Tatsuta M, Iishi H, et al. Randomized Lind T, Havelund T, Carlsson R, Anker-Hansen O, Glise H, Hernqvist H, comparative study of omeprazole and famotidine in reflux esophagitis.
et al. Heartburn without oesophagitis: efficacy of omeprazole therapy J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 17:955–959.
and features determining therapeutic response. Scand J Gastroenterol Van Zyl JH, Grundling H, van Rensburg CJ, Retief FJ, O'Keefe SJD, Theron 1997; 32:974–979.
I, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of 20 mg pantoprazole versus 300 mg Miner P Jr, Orr W, Filippone J, Jokubaitis L, Sloan S. Rabeprazole in non ranitidine in patients with mild reflux-oesophagitis: a randomized, erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind, parallel, and multicentre study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:1332–1339.
2000; 12:197–202.
Richter JE, Peura D, Benjamin SB, Joelsson B, Whipple J. Efficacy of Sharma VK, Leontiadis GI, Howden CW. Meta-analysis of randomized omeprazole for the treatment of symptomatic acid reflux disease without controlled trials comparing standard clinical doses of omeprazole and esophagitis. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160:1810–1816.
lansoprazole in erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001; Watson RGP, Tham TCK, Johnston BT, McDougall NI. Double blind cross- over placebo controlled study of omeprazole in the treatment of patients Scholten T, Gatz G, Hole U. Once-daily pantoprazole 40 mg and with reflux symptoms and physiological levels of acid reflux – the ‘sensitive esomeprazole 40 mg have equivalent overall efficacy in relieving GERD- esophagus'. Gut 1997; 40:587–590.
related symptoms. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18:587–594.
Havelund T, Lind T, Wiklund I, Glise H, Hernqvist H, Lauritsen K, et al.
Staerk Laursen L, Havelund T, Bondesen S, Hansen J, Sanchez G, Sebelin Quality of life in patients with heartburn but without esophagitis: effects of E, et al. Omeprazole in the long-term treatment of gastro-oesophageal treatment with omeprazole. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94:1782–1789.
reflux disease. A double-blind randomized dose-finding study. Scand Richter J, Campbell DR, Kahrilas PJ, Huang B, Fludas C. Lansoprazole J Gastroenterol 1995; 30:839–846.
compared with ranitidine for the treatment of nonerosive gastroesophageal Holtmann G, Bytzer P, Metz M, Loeffler V, Blum AL. A randomised, reflux disease. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160:1803–1809.
double-blind, comparative study of standard-dose rabeprazole and Armstrong D, Pare´ P, Pericak D, Pyzyk M, Canadian Pantoprazole GERD high-dose omeprazole in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Study Group. A randomised, controlled comparison of pantoprazole and Pharmacol Ther 2002; 16:479–485.
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2006, Vol 18 No 4 Bardhan KD, Van Rensburg C. Comparable clinical efficacy and tolerability blind trial of the efficacy and safety of 10 or 20 mg rabeprazole compared of 20 mg pantoprazole and 20 mg omeprazole in patients with grade I reflux with 20 mg omeprazole in the maintenance of gastro-oesophageal reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001; 15:1585–1591.
disease over 5 years. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17:343–351.
Moretzsohn LD, Brito EM, Reis MS, Coelho LG, Castro L de P. Assessment of Jaspersen D, Diehl K-L, Schoeppner H, Geyer P, Martens E. A comparison effectiveness of different dosage regimens of pantoprazole in controlling of omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole in the maintenance symptoms and healing esophageal lesions of patients with mild erosive treatment of severe reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; esophagitis. Arquivos de Gastroenterologia 2002; 39:123–125.
Dekkers CPM, Beker JA, Thjodleifsson B, Gabryelewiczs A, Bell NE, Plein K, Hotz J, Wurzer H, Fumagalli I, Lu¨hmann R, Schneider A.
Humphries TJ, and the European Rabeprazole Study Group. Double-blind Pantoprazole 20 mg is an effective maintenance therapy for patients with placebo-controlled comparison of rabeprazole 20 mg vs. omeprazole gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000; 20 mg in the treatment of erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13:49–57.
Lauritsen K, Devie re J, Bigard MA, Bayerdo¨rffer E, Mozsik G, Murray F, Olmos J, Higa R, Rios H, Lozzi RD, Da´volos J, and the Argentine et al. Esomeprazole 20 mg and lansoprazole 15 mg in maintaining healed Lansoprazole Study Group. Equivalence of therapeutic efficacy of reflux oesophagitis: Metropole study results. Aliment Pharmacol Ther lansoprazole 15 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg in mild and moderate erosive 2003; 17:333–341.
reflux esophagitis (ERE). Esophagus 2001. In: VIIIth World Congress. Sao Donnellan C, Sharma N, Preston C, Moayyedi P. Medical treatments for the Paulo, Brazil, 5–8 September 2001. (Reprint from Recent Advances in maintenance therapy of reflux oesophagitis and endoscopic negative reflux Diseases of the Esophagus.) disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4; 2004.
Olmos J, Higa R, Rı´os H, Gadea O, Davolos J, and the Lansoprazole Study Bate CM, Green JR, Axon AT, Tildesley G, Murrays FE, Owen SM, et al.
Group. Lansoprazole (LAN) 30 mg and omeprazole (OME) 20 mg present Omeprazole is more effective than cimetidine in the prevention of the same efficacy in the treatment of moderate and severe erosive reflux recurrence of GERD-associated heartburn and the occurrence of esophagitis (ERE). Esophagus 2001. In: VIIIth World Congress. Sao underlying oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; 12:41–47.
Paulo, Brazil, 5–8 September 2001. (Reprint from Recent Advances in Festen HPM, Schenk E, Tan G, Snel P, Nelis F, and the Dutch Reflux Study Diseases of the Esophagus.) Group. Omeprazole versus high-dose ranitidine in mild gastroesophageal Mee AS, Rowley JL. Rapid symptom relief in reflux oesophagitis: reflux disease: short and long term treatment. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; a comparison of lansoprazole and omeprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1996; 10:757–763.
Simon TJ, Roberts WG, Berlin RG, Hayden LJ, Berman RS, Reagan JE.
Ko¨rner T, Schu¨tze K, van Leendert RJ, Fumagalli I, Costa Neves B, Acid suppression by famotidine 20 mg twice daily or 40 mg twice daily Bohuschke M, Gatz G. Comparable efficacy of pantoprazole and in preventing relapse of endoscopic recurrence of erosive esophagitis.
omeprazole in patients with moderate to severe reflux esophagitis.
Clin Therapeut 1995; 17:1147–1156.
Digestion 2003; 67:6–13.
Sontag SJ, O'Connell SO, Khandelwal S, Greenlee H, Schnell T, Richter JE, Kahrilas PJ, Johanson J, Maton P, Breiter JR, Hwang C, Nemchausky B, et al. Asthmatics with gastroesophageal reflux: long term et al. Esomeprazole Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of results of a randomized trial of medical and surgical antireflux therapies.
esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in GERD patients with Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:987–999.
erosive esophagitis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol Lundell L, Miettinen P, Myrvold HE, Pedersen SA, Thor K, Lamm M, et al., 2001; 96:656–665.
and the Nordic GORD Study Group. Long-term management of gastro- Kahrilas PJ, Falk GW, Johnson DA, Schmitt C, Collins DW, Whipple J, et al.
oesophageal reflux disease with omeprazole or open antireflux surgery: Esomeprazole improves healing and symptom resolution as compared with results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Eur J Gastroenterol omeprazole in reflux oesophagitis patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Hepatol 2000; 12:879–887.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000; 14:1249–1258.
Spechler SJ, Gordon D, Cohen J, Williford WO, Krol W. The effects Castell DO, Kahrilas PJ, Richter JE, Vakil NB, Johnson DA, Zuckerman S, of antireflux therapy on pulmonary function in patients with severe et al. Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; treatment of erosive esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:575–583.
Lind T, Havelund T, Lundell L, Glise H, Lauritsen K, Pedersen SA, et al. On Spechler SJ, Lee E, Ahnen D, Goyal RK, Hirano I, Ramirez F, et al.
demand therapy with omeprazole for the long-term management of patients Long-term outcome of medical and surgical therapies for with heartburn without oesophagitis – a placebo-controlled randomized gastroesophageal reflux disease. JAMA 2001; 285:2331–2338.
trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13:907–914.
Spechler SJ. Comparison of medical and surgical therapy for complicated Talley NJ, Lauritsen K, Tunturi-Hihnala H, Lind T, Moum B, Bang C, et al.
gastro-esophageal reflux disease in veterans. N Engl J Med 1992; Esomeprazole 20 mg maintains symptom control in endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a controlled trial of ‘on-demand' Bais JE, Bartelsman JF, Bonjer HJ, Cuesta MA, Go PM, Klinkenberg-Knol therapy for 6 months. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001; 15:347–354.
EC, et al., the Netherlands Antireflux Surgery Study Group. Laparoscopic Wahlqvist P, Junghard O, Higgins A, Green J. Cost effectiveness of proton or conventional Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: pump inhibitors in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease without oesophagitis.
randomized clinical trial. Lancet 2000; 355:170–174.
Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20:267–277.
Heikinnen TJ, Haukipuro K, Koivukangas P, Sorasto A, Autio R, Sodervik H, Meineche-Schmidt V, Hauschildt H, Oestergaard JE, Luckow A, et al. Comparison of costs between laparoscopic and open Nissen Hvenegaard A. Costs and efficacy of three different esomeprazole fundoplication: a prospective randomized study with a 3-month follow up.
treatment strategies for long-term management of gastroesophageal reflux J Am Coll Surg 1999; 188:368–376.
symptoms in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 19:907–915.
Catarci M, Gentileschi P, Papi C, Carrara A, Marrese R, Gaspari AL, Grassi Johnson DA, Benjamin SB, Vakil NB, Goldstein JL, Lamet M, Whipple J, GB. Evidence-based appraisal of antireflux fundoplication. Ann Surg 2004; et al. Esomeprazole once daily for 6 months is effective therapy for maintaining healed erosive esophagitis and for controlling Fallone CA, Barkun AN, Friedman G, Mayrand S, Loo V, Beech R, et al.
gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: a randomised, double-blind, Is Helicobacter pylori eradication associated with gastroesophageal reflux placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; disease? Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95:914–920.
Moayyedi P, Bardhan C, Young L, Dixon MF, Brown L, Axon ATR.
Vakil NB, Shaker R, Johnson DA, Kovacs T, Baerg RD, Hwang C, et al. The Helicobacter pylori eradication does not exacerbate reflux symptoms new proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole is effective as a maintenance in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2001; 121: therapy in GERD patients with healed erosive oesophagitis: a 6 month, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety.
Numans ME, Lau J, de Wit NJ, Bonis PA. Short-term treatment with Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001; 15:927–935.
proton-pump inhibitors as a test for gastroesophageal reflux disease: Bardhan KD, Cherian P, Vaishnavi A, Jones RB, Thompson M, Morris P, a meta-analysis of diagnostic test characteristics. Ann Intern Med 2004; et al. Erosive oesophagitis: outcome of repeated long term maintenance treatment with low dose omeprazole 10 mg or placebo. Gut 1998; DeVault KR, Castell DO. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The Practice Parameters Thjodleifsson B, Rindi G, Fiocca R, Humphries TJ, Morocutti A, Miller N, Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Bardhan KD, European Rabeprazole Study Group. A randomised, double- Gastroenterol 1999; 94:1434–1442.
Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Source: http://coloproctologia.com.ar/biblioteca/gastroenterologia/consenso_latinoamericano_erge.pdf