Trial reportJournal of gastroenterology2010
A double-blind, controlled study comparing lafutidine with placebo and famotidine in Japanese patients with mild reflux esophagitis.
Trial report in Journal of gastroenterology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addition of bedtime lafutidine inhibits nocturnal acid-breakthrough and improves sleep quality in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients on esomeprazole: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Randomized study of lafutidine vs lansoprazole in patients with mild gastroesophageal reflux disease.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Trial
- Efficacy of Lafutidine Versus Famotidine in Patients with Reflux Esophagitis: A Multi-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind, Non-inferiority Phase III Trial.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2015Trial
- Recent Advances in the Pharmacological Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2017Review
- Effectiveness and Tolerability of Different Recommended Doses of PPIs and HScientific reports · 2017Article
- New and future drug development for gastroesophageal reflux disease.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis randomized, double-blind, controlled study examined whether lafutidine is superior to placebo and non-inferior to famotidine in terms of healing rates as assessed by endoscopy in Japanese patients with mild reflux esophagitis. Safety and improvement in symptoms of heartburn were also assessed.
methodsPatients with an endoscopic diagnosis of grade A or B reflux esophagitis according to the Los Angeles classification were randomly assigned to receive lafutidine (20 mg/day), famotidine (40 mg/day), or placebo for 8 weeks.
resultsOf the 584 patients enrolled in the study, 447 were diagnosed to have grade A or B reflux esophagitis by the Endoscopic Assessment Committee. Healing rates at 8 weeks were 71.0% (115/162) in the lafutidine group, 61.4% (86/140) in the famotidine group, and 9.7% (14/145) in the placebo group. Lafutidine was thus demonstrated to be superior to placebo and non-inferior to famotidine. As compared with placebo, lafutidine significantly improved symptoms of heartburn.
conclusionsLafutidine has a high endoscopic healing rate and improves symptoms of heartburn in patients with mild reflux esophagitis. Lafutidine is considered a promising treatment option for mild reflux esophagitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.