Gaviscon® vs. omeprazole in symptomatic treatment of moderate gastroesophageal reflux. a direct comparative randomised trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Medical management of GERD mainly uses proton pump inhibitors. Alginates also have proven efficacy. The aim of this trial was to compare short-term efficacy of an alginate (Gaviscon^®, 4 × 10 mL/day) and omeprazole (20 mg/day) on GERD symptoms in general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A 14-day multicentre randomised double-blind double-dummy non-inferiority trial compared Gaviscon^®(4 × 10 mL/day) and omeprazole (20 mg/day) in patients with 2-6 day heartburn episodes weekly without alarm signals. The primary outcome was the mean time to onset of the first 24-h heartburn-free period after initial dosing. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients without heartburn by D7, pain relief by D7, and reduction in pain intensity by D7 and D14.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>278 patients were recruited; 120 were included in the Gaviscon^®group and 121 in the omeprazole group for the per protocol non-inferiority analysis. The mean time to onset of the first 24-h heartburn-free period after initial dosing was 2.0 (± 2.2) days for Gaviscon^®and 2.0 (± 2.3) days for omeprazole (<it>p </it>= 0.93); mean intergroup difference was 0.01 ± 1.55 days (95% CI = -0.41 to 0.43): i.e., less than the lower limit of the 95% CI of -0.5 days predetermined to demonstrate non-inferiority. The mean number of heartburn-free days by D7 was significantly greater in the omeprazole group: 3.7 ± 2.3 days vs. 3.1 ± 2.1 (<it>p </it>= 0.02). On D7, overall quality of pain relief was slightly in favour of omeprazole (<it>p </it>= 0.049). There was no significant difference in the reduction in pain intensity between groups by D7 (<it>p = </it>0.11) or D14 (<it>p = </it>0.08). Tolerance and safety were good and comparable in both groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Gaviscon^®was non-inferior to omeprazole in achieving a 24-h heartburn-free period in moderate episodic heartburn, and is a relevant effective alternative treatment in moderate GERD in primary care.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN62203233">ISRCTN62203233</a>.</p

Low Concentrations of Methamphetamine Can Protect Dopaminergic Cells against a Larger Oxidative Stress Injury: Mechanistic Study

Mild stress can protect against a larger insult, a phenomenon termed preconditioning or tolerance. To determine if a low intensity stressor could also protect cells against intense oxidative stress in a model of dopamine deficiency associated with Parkinson disease, we used methamphetamine to provide a mild, preconditioning stress, 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) as a source of potentially toxic oxidative stress, and MN9D cells as a model of dopamine neurons. We observed that prior exposure to subtoxic concentrations of methamphetamine protected these cells against 6-OHDA toxicity, whereas higher concentrations of methamphetamine exacerbated it. The protection by methamphetamine was accompanied by decreased uptake of both [3H] dopamine and 6-OHDA into the cells, which may have accounted for some of the apparent protection. However, a number of other effects of methamphetamine exposure suggest that the drug also affected basic cellular survival mechanisms. First, although methamphetamine preconditioning decreased basal pERK1/2 and pAkt levels, it enhanced the 6-OHDA-induced increase in these phosphokinases. Second, the apparent increase in pERK1/2 activity was accompanied by increased pMEK1/2 levels and decreased activity of protein phosphatase 2. Third, methamphetamine upregulated the pro-survival protein Bcl-2. Our results suggest that exposure to low concentrations of methamphetamine cause a number of changes in dopamine cells, some of which result in a decrease in their vulnerability to subsequent oxidative stress. These observations may provide insights into the development of new therapies for prevention or treatment of PD

Why conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments for biodiversity conservation

Given the concern about biodiversity loss, there are a number of arguments used for biodiversity conservation ranging from those emphasising the intrinsic value of biodiversity to those on the direct use value of ecosystems. Yet arguing the case for biodiversity conservation effectively requires an understanding of why people value biodiversity. We used Q methodology to explore and understand how different conservation practitioners (social and natural science researchers, environmental non-Governmental organisations and decision-makers) in nine European countries argue for conservation. We found that there was a plurality of views about biodiversity and its conservation. A moral argument and some arguments around the intrinsic and ecological value of biodiversity were held by all stakeholder groups. They also shared the view that species valuation does not justify the destruction of nature. However, there were also some differences within and between the groups, which primarily reflected the espousal of either ecocentric or anthropocentric viewpoints. Our findings suggest that moral arguments and those around biodiversity’s intrinsic and ecological value could potentially serve as a starting point for building consensus among conservation practitioners