Trial reportJournal of gastroenterology2014
A multicentre randomised trial to compare the efficacy of omeprazole versus rabeprazole in early symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis.
Trial report in Journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mucosal Healing Effectiveness and Safety of Anaprazole, a Novel PPI, vs. Rabeprazole in Patients With Duodenal Ulcers: A Randomized Double-Blinded Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Pharmacological Effects and Toxicogenetic Impacts of Omeprazole: Genomic Instability and Cancer.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2020Review
- A review of medical therapy for proton pump inhibitor nonresponsive gastroesophageal reflux disease.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2017Review
- Efficacy of a potassium-competitive acid blocker for improving symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis, non-erosive reflux disease, and functional dyspepsia.Biomedical reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are affected by cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) polymorphisms. This study compared the effect of two PPIs on early symptom relief in Japanese patients with reflux esophagitis, classified by the CYP2C19 phenotype.
methodsPatients with reflux esophagitis were randomised to treatment with omeprazole 20 mg or rabeprazole 10 mg once daily. The CYP2C19 phenotype [homozygous extensive metaboliser (homoEM), heterozygous extensive metaboliser (heteroEM) or poor metaboliser (PM)] of each patient was determined. The primary efficacy endpoint was early, sufficient (Global Overall Symptom scale score 1 or 2), sustained (maintained for ≥7 days) reflux symptom relief.
resultsOf the 199 patients included in this analysis, the proportion achieving sufficient, sustained reflux symptom relief was higher with omeprazole than with rabeprazole on day 1 (35.6 vs. 22.4%; p = 0.041) and day 2 (43.6 vs. 28.6%; p = 0.028); there was no significant difference between the two groups on days 3-7. Among patients with the CYP2C19 PM phenotype, sufficient, sustained reflux symptom relief was higher with omeprazole than with rabeprazole on days 4-7 (62.5-66.9 vs. 31.6%; p ≤ 0.03); differences were not significant on days 1-3, or among those with the homoEM or heteroEM phenotypes on days 1-7.
conclusionsIn Japanese patients with reflux esophagitis, omeprazole 20 mg is more effective than rabeprazole 10 mg at achieving early, sufficient, sustained reflux symptom relief in individuals with the CYP2C19 PM phenotype, and is similarly effective to rabeprazole 10 mg in those with heteroEM or homoEM phenotypes.
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.