Effect of omeprazole on patient-reported outcome measures in uninvestigated heartburn: a multi-country, multi-center observational study

Background: Heartburn occurs predominantly in the upper gastrointestinal tract and is associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and gastritis. Omeprazole is the most prescribed proton pump inhibitor class of medication to treat heartburn related clinical conditions. To compare the efficacy of omeprazole 40 mg (as a total daily dose) and 20 mg using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with heartburn due to various aetiologies like non-erosive reflux disease, GERD, gastritis, dyspepsia, functional heartburn, gastro-duodenal ulcer.Methods: Naïve patients presenting heartburn symptoms were treated with omeprazole. PROMs were assessed based on short-form-leeds dyspepsia questionnaires (SF-LDQ), work productivity activity impairment (WPAI), relief obtained using medication and, treatment satisfactory questionnaires (TSQ).Results: A total of 18,724 patients with heartburn (GERD and gastritis; n=10,509) were treated with omeprazole (Dr. Reddy’s omeprazole [DO]/generic omeprazole [GO]/branded omeprazole [BO]) 40 mg (as a total daily dose) and 20 mg. Statistical comparative analysis showed significant improvement with omeprazole 40 mg (as a total daily dose) compared to omeprazole 20 mg in SF-LDQ, relief obtained using medication among patients with heartburn. DO 20 mg showed a greater improvement under the ‘a lot’ and ‘complete’ relief category.Conclusions: Omeprazole 40 mg (as a total daily dose) presented better efficacy as compared to omeprazole 20 mg in patient reported outcomes. This study highlights omeprazole 40 mg as the preferred intervention for improving PROMs and quality of life in the treatment of heartburn related clinical conditions

International Consensus on Guiding Recommendations for Management of Patients with Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Induced Gastropathy-ICON-G

Introduction: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), one of the most commonly used medications worldwide, are frequently associated with gastrointestinal adverse events. Primary care physicians often face the challenge of achieving adequate pain relief with NSAIDs, while keeping their adverse events to a minimum. This is especially true when long-term use of NSAIDs is required such as in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. To help primary care physicians deal with such challenges more effectively, a panel of expert gastroenterologists came together with the aim of developing practice recommendations. Methods: A modified ‘Delphi’ process was used to reach consensus and develop practice recommendations. Twelve gastroenterologists from nine countries provided their expert inputs to formulate the recommendations. These recommendations were carefully developed taking into account existing literature, current practices, and expert opinion of the panelists. Results: The expert panel developed a total of fifteen practice recommendations. Following are the key recommendations: NSAIDs should be prescribed only when necessary; before prescribing NSAIDs, associated modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors should be considered; H. pylori infection should be considered and treated before initiating NSAIDs; patients should be properly educated regarding NSAIDs use; patients who need to be on long-term NSAIDs should be prescribed a gastroprotective agent, preferably a proton pump inhibitor and these patients should be closely monitored for any untoward adverse events. Conclusion/clinical significance: These practice recommendations will serve as an important tool for primary care physicians and will guide them in making appropriate therapeutic choices for their patients. Keywords: Gastropathy, Gastroprotective agents, Non-prescription drugs, Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Agents, Proton pump inhibitor. How to cite this article: Hunt R, Lazebnik LB, Marakhouski YC, Manuc M, Ramesh GN, Aye KS, Bordin DS, Bakulina NV, Iskakov BS, Khamraev AA, Stepanov YM, Ally R, Garg A. International Consensus on Guiding Recommendations for Management of Patients with Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Induced Gastropathy-ICON-G. Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol, 2018;8(2):148-160. Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: Richard Hunt has served as a consultant for INSYS, Dr Reddy's, Takeda, and Novartis. He has received an honorarium from Novartis, Danone, Dr Reddy's, and Takeda. He has been on the speaker's bureau for Takeda and Dr Reddy's and on scientific advisory board for INSYS. Dmitry S Bordin has served as a lecturer for Astellas, AstraZeneca, KRKA and Abbott. For the remaining authors, there are no conflicts of interest

Developing an instrument to assess the endoscopic severity of ulcerative colitis : The Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS)

Full list of Investigators is given at the end of the article.Background: Variability in endoscopic assessment necessitates rigorous investigation of descriptors for scoring severity of ulcerative colitis (UC). Objective: To evaluate variation in the overall endoscopic assessment of severity, the intra- and interindividual variation of descriptive terms and to create an Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity which could be validated. Design: A two-phase study used a library of 670 video sigmoidoscopies from patients with Mayo Clinic scores 0-11, supplemented by 10 videos from five people without UC and five hospitalised patients with acute severe UC. In phase 1, each of 10 investigators viewed 16/24 videos to assess agreement on the Baron score with a central reader and agreed definitions of 10 endoscopic descriptors. In phase 2, each of 30 different investigators rated 25/60 different videos for the descriptors and assessed overall severity on a 0-100 visual analogue scale. κ Statistics tested inter- and intraobserver variability for each descriptor. A general linear mixed regression model based on logit link and β distribution of variance was used to predict overall endoscopic severity from descriptors. Results: There was 76% agreement for 'severe', but 27% agreement for 'normal' appearances between phase I investigators and the central reader. In phase 2, weighted κ values ranged from 0.34 to 0.65 and 0.30 to 0.45 within and between observers for the 10 descriptors. The final model incorporated vascular pattern, (normal/patchy/ complete obliteration) bleeding (none/mucosal/luminal mild/luminal moderate or severe), erosions and ulcers (none/erosions/superficial/deep), each with precise definitions, which explained 90% of the variance (pR2, Akaike Information Criterion) in the overall assessment of endoscopic severity, predictions varying from 4 to 93 on a 100-point scale (from normal to worst endoscopic severity). Conclusion: The Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity accurately predicts overall assessment of endoscopic severity of UC. Validity and responsiveness need further testing before it can be applied as an outcome measure in clinical trials or clinical practice.publishersversionPeer reviewe

The role of centralized reading of endoscopy in a randomized controlled trial of mesalamine for ulcerative colitis

Background & Aims: Interobserver differences in endoscopic assessments contribute to variations in rates of response to placebo in ulcerative colitis (UC) trials. We investigated whether centralized review of images could reduce these variations. Methods: We performed a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 281 patients with mildly to moderately active UC, defined by an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) sigmoidoscopy score ≥2, that evaluated the efficacy of delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol 800-mg tablet) 4.8 g/day. Endoscopic images were reviewed by a single expert central reader. The primary outcome was clinical remission (UCDAI, stool frequency and bleeding scores of 0, and no fecal urgency) at week 6. Results: The primary outcome was achieved by 30.0% of patients treated with mesalamine and 20.6% of those given placebo, a difference of 9.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7% to 19.4%; P =.069). Significant differences in results from secondary analyses indicated the efficacy of mesalamine. Thirty-one percent of participants, all of whom had a UCDAI sigmoidoscopy score ≥2 as read by the site investigator, were considered ineligible by the central reader. After exclusion of these patients, the remission rates were 29.0% and 13.8% in the mesalamine and placebo groups, respectively (difference of 15%; 95% CI, 3.5%-26.0%; P =.011). Conclusions: Although mesalamine 4.8 g/day was not statistically different from placebo for induction of remission in patients with mildly to moderately active UC, based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the totality of the data supports a benefit of treatment. Central review of endoscopic images is critical to the conduct of induction studies in UC; ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT01059344. © 2013 by the AGA Institute