Systematic review: Standard- and double-dose proton pump inhibitors for the healing of severe erosive oesophagitis - A mixed treatment comparison of randomized controlled trials

Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 547-556

  Edwards, S J ^a   Lind, T ^b   Lundell, L ^c   Das, R ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^b ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

^c KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ESOMEPRAZOLE; LANSOPRAZOLE; OMEPRAZOLE; PANTOPRAZOLE; RABEPRAZOLE;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DATA SYNTHESIS; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG EFFICACY; EMBASE; GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; HEALING; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDLINE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL; REFLUX ESOPHAGITIS; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

2-PYRIDINYLMETHYLSULFINYLBENZIMIDAZOLES; ANTI-ULCER AGENTS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ESOPHAGITIS; HUMANS; OMEPRAZOLE; PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 68949204296     PISSN: 02692813     EISSN: 13652036     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04077.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Holloway RH, Dent J, Narielvala F, Mackinnon AM. Relation between oesophageal acid exposure and healing of oesophagitis with omeprazole in patients with severe reflux oesophagitis. Gut 1996 38 : 649 54.
2. Moore RA, Phillips C. Reflux oesophagitis: quantitative systematic review of the evidence of effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors and histamine antagonists. Bandolier 1999. Available at: http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/ bandolier/bandopubs/gordf/gord.html (Last accessed April 2009)
3. Chiba N, de Gara CJ, Wilkinson JM, Hunt RH. Speed of healing and symptom relief in grade II to IV gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 1997 112 : 1798 810.
4. Losec® MUPS®. Losec® MUPS® Tablets 10 mg, 20 mg & 40 mg SmPC. Available at: emc.medicines.org.uk/medicine/10841/SPC/ Losec+MUPS+Tablets+10mg%2c+20mg+%26+40mg/ (Last accessed March 2009).
5. Nexium®. Nexium® 20 mg and 40 mg Tablets SmPC. Available at: emc.medicines.org.uk/medicine/14307/SPC/Nexium+20mg+%26+40mg+Tablets/ (Last accessed March 2009).
6. Pariet. Pariet 10 mg & 20 mg Tablets SmPC. Available at: emc.medicines.org.uk/medicine/2577/SPC/Pariet+10mg+%26+20mg/ (Last accessed March 2009).
7. Protium®. Protium® 40 mg Tablet SmPC. Available at: emc.medicines.org.uk/medicine/13055/SPC/Protium+40+mg+tablet/ (Last accessed March 2009).
8. Zoton® FasTab®. Zoton® FasTab® SmPC. Available at: emc.medicines.org.uk/medicine/10426/SPC/Zoton+FasTab/ (Last accessed March 2009).
9. Edwards SJ, Lind T, Lundell L. Systematic review of proton pump inhibitors for the acute treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001 15 : 1729 36.
10. Klok RM, Postma MJ, van Hout BA, et al. Meta-analysis: comparing the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in short-term use. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003 17 : 1237 45.
11. Vakil N, Fennerty MB. Direct comparative trials of the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003 18 : 559 68.
12. Edwards SJ, Lind T, Lundell L. Systematic review: proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the healing of reflux oesophagitis - a comparison of esomeprazole with other PPIs. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006 24 : 743 50.
13. Gralnek IM, Dulai GS, Fennerty MB, et al. Esomeprazole versus other proton pump inhibitors in erosive esophagitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006 4 : 1452 8.
14. Bate CM, Booth SN, Crowe JP, et al. Does 40 mg omeprazole daily offer additional benefit in patients requiring more than 4 weeks of treatment for symptomatic reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1993 7 : 501 7.
15. Lundell L, Dent J, Bennett JR, et al. Endocopic assessment of esophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut 1999 45 : 172 80.
16. NICE, Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, June 2008. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf (Last accessed March 2009)
17. Edwards SJ, Clarke MJ, Wordsworth S, et al. Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Int J Clin Pract 2009 63 : 841 54.
18. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997 50 : 683 91.
19. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005 331 : 897 900.
20. Ades AE. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multiparameter synthesis and consistency of evidence. Stat Med 2003 22 : 2995 3016.
21. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004 23 : 3105 24.
22. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002 21 : 2313 24.
23. Psaty BM, Lumley T, Furberg CD, et al. Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis. JAMA 2003 289 : 2534 44.
24. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, et al. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J Roy Statist Soc B 2002 64 : 583 639.
25. Dempster AP. The direct use of likelihood for significance testing. Stat Comp 1997 7 : 247 52.
26. Castell DO, Richter JE, Robinson M. Efficacy and safety of lansoprazole in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1996 91 : 1749. 57.
27. Castell DO, Kahrilas PJ, Richter JE, et al. Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002 97 : 575 83.
28. Fennerty MB, Johanson JF, Hwang C, et al. Efficacy of esomeprazole 40 mg versus lansoprazole 30 mg for healing moderate to severe erosive esophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005 21 : 455 63.
29. Hetzel DJ, Dent J, Reed WD, et al. Healing and relapse of severe peptic esophagitis after treatment with omeprazole. Gastroenterology 1988 95 : 903 12.
30. Howden CW, Ballard ED, Robieson W. Evidence for therapeutic equivalence of lansoprazole 30 mg and esomeprazole 40 mg in the treatment of erosive oesophagitis. Clin Drug Invest 2002 22 : 99 109.
31. Kahrilas PJ, Falk GW, Johnson DA, et al. Esomeprazole improves healing and symptom resolution as compared with omeprazole in reflux esophagitis patients: a randomized controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000 14 : 1249 58.
32. Labenz J, Armstrong D, Lauritsen K, et al. A randomized comparative study of esomeprazole 40 mg versus pantoprazole 40 mg for healing erosive oesophagitis: the EXPO study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005 21 : 1 8.
33. Mee AS, Rowley JL, Lansoprazole Clinical Research Group. Rapid sysmptom relief in reflux oesophagitis: a comparison of lansoprazole and omeprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1996 10 : 757 63.
34. Mulder CJ, Dekker W, Gerretsen M. Lansoprazole 30 mg versus omeprazole 40 mg in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis grade II, III and IVa (a Dutch multicentre trial). Dutch Study Group. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996 8 : 1101 6.
35. Richter JE, Kahrilas PJ, Johanson J, et al. Efficacy and safety of esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in GERD patients with erosive esophagitis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2001 96 : 656 65.
36. Sontag SJ, Hirschowitz BI, Holt S, et al. Two doses of omeprazole versus placebo in symptomatic erosive esophagitis: the U.S. Multicenter Study. Gastroenterology 1992 102 : 109 18.
37. Schmitt C, Lightdale C, Hwang C, et al. A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, 8-week comparative study of esomeprazole 40 mg and omeprazole 20 mg for the treatment of erosive esophagitis. Dig Dis Sci 2006 51 : 844 50.
38. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009 338 : 920 35.
39. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995 273 : 408 12.
40. Miner P Jr., Katz PO, Chen Y, et al. Gastric acid control with esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole: a five-way crossover study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003 98 : 2616 20.
41. Röhss K, Hasselgren G, Hedenström H. Effect of esomeprazole 40 mg vs omeprazole 40 mg on 24-hour intragastric pH in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Dis Sci 2002 47 : 954 8.
42. Dekkers CPM, Beker JA, Thjodleifsson B, et al. Double blind, placebo controlled comparison of rabeprazole 20 mg versus omeprazole 20 mg in the treatment of erosive or ulcerative GORD. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999 13 : 49 57.
43. Adachi K, Hashimoto T, Hamamoto N, et al. Symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis: Comparative study of omeprazole, lansoprazole and rabeprazole. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003 18 : 1392 8.
44. Tolman KG, Täubel J, Warrington S, et al. Comparison of the effects of single and repeated oral doses of lansoprazole and rabeprazole on ambulatory 24-hour intragastric pH in healthy volunteers. Clin Drug Investig 2006 26 : 21 8.
45. Bardhan KD, Hawkey CJ, Long RG, et al. Lansoprazole versus ranitidine for the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1995 9 : 145 51.
46. Earnest DL, Dorsch E, Jones J, et al. A placebo-controlled dose-ranging study of lansoprazole in the management of reflux esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1998 93 : 238 43.
47. Cloud ML, Enas N, Humphries TJ, et al. Rabeprazole in treatment of acid peptic diseases. Results of three placebo-controlled dose-response clinical trials in duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Dig Dis Sci 1998 43 : 993 1000.
48. Mason J, Hungin APS. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease - the health economic implications. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005 22 (Suppl 1) 20 31.