Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Apr 14:16:48.
doi: 10.1186/s12876-016-0448-x.

Randomized, multicenter study: on-demand versus continuous maintenance treatment with esomeprazole in patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized, multicenter study: on-demand versus continuous maintenance treatment with esomeprazole in patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease

Ekkehard Bayerdörffer et al. BMC Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Background: Most patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease experience symptomatic relapse after stopping acid-suppressive medication. The aim of this study was to compare willingness to continue treatment with esomeprazole on-demand versus continuous maintenance therapy for symptom control in patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) after 6 months.

Methods: This multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group study enrolled adults with NERD who were heartburn-free after 4 weeks' treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg daily. Patients received esomeprazole 20 mg daily continuously or on-demand for 6 months. The primary variable was discontinuation due to unsatisfactory treatment. On-demand treatment was considered non-inferior if the upper limit of the one-sided 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatments was <10 %.

Results: Of 877 patients enrolled, 598 were randomized to maintenance treatment (continuous: n = 297; on-demand: n = 301). Discontinuation due to unsatisfactory treatment was 6.3 % for on-demand and 9.8 % for continuous treatment (difference -3.5 % [90 % CI: -7.1 %, 0.2 %]). In total, 82.1 and 86.2 % of patients taking on-demand and continuous therapy, respectively, were satisfied with the treatment of heartburn and regurgitation symptoms, a secondary variable (P = NS). Mean study drug consumption was 0.41 and 0.91 tablets/day, respectively. Overall, 5 % of the on-demand group developed reflux esophagitis versus none in the continuous group (P < 0.0001). The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale Reflux dimension was also improved for continuous versus on-demand treatment. Esomeprazole was well tolerated.

Conclusions: In terms of willingness to continue treatment, on-demand treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg was non-inferior to continuous maintenance treatment and reduced medication usage in patients with NERD who had achieved symptom control with initial esomeprazole treatment.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02670642 ; Date of registration: December 2015.

Keywords: Discontinuation; Esomeprazole; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Heartburn; Non-erosive reflux disease; On-demand.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design. Abbreviations: NERD, non-erosive reflux disease (without mucosal breaks on pre-treatment endoscopy); od, once daily
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram of patients’ disposition through the stages of the study. Abbreviations: ITT, intention-to-treat; PP, per-protocol
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Mean (a) Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale and (b) Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire scores at baselinea, following 4 weeks’ initial (short-term) treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg once daily, and after maintenance treatment with either on-demand or continuous esomeprazole for 6 months (intention-to-treat population). aBaseline corresponds to visit 1 (week −4). *P < 0.01 and **P ≤ 0.001 for the difference in the change in scores from baseline to the end of maintenance treatment for continuous versus on-demand treatment groups

References

    1. Kaynard A, Flora K. Gastroesophageal reflux disease. Control of symptoms, prevention of complications. Postgrad Med. 2001;110(3):42–4. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2001.09.1017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R. The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(8):1900–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Locke GR, 3rd, Talley NJ, Fett SL, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ., 3rd Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(5):1448–56. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(97)70025-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hershcovici T, Fass R. Nonerosive Reflux Disease (NERD) - an update. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010;16(1):8–21. doi: 10.5056/jnm.2010.16.1.8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Havelund T, Lind T, Wiklund I, Glise H, Hernqvist H, Lauritsen K, et al. Quality of life in patients with heartburn but without esophagitis: effects of treatment with omeprazole. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94(7):1782–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01206.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data