Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26060354›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition2015

Long-term efficacy and safety of rabeprazole in patients taking low-dose aspirin with a history of peptic ulcers: a phase 2/3, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, extension clinical trial.

Mitsuhiro Fujishiro, Kazuhide Higuchi, Mototsugu Kato, Yoshikazu Kinoshita, Ryuichi Iwakiri, Toshio Watanabe, Toshihisa Takeuchi, Nobuyuki Sugisaki, Yasushi Okada, Hisao Ogawa and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Mitsuhiro FujishiroDepartment of Endoscopy and Endoscopic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan.
Kazuhide HiguchiSecond Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka Medical College, 2-7 Daigaku-cho, Takatsuki, Osaka 569-8686, Japan.
Mototsugu KatoDivision of Endoscopy, Hokkaido University Hospital, Nishi 5-chome, Kita 14-jou, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8648, Japan.
Yoshikazu KinoshitaDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Faculty of Medicine, Shimane University, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, Shimane 693-8501, Japan.
Ryuichi IwakiriDepartment of Internal Medicine & Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Saga Medical School, 5-1-1 Nabeshima, Saga 849-8501, Japan.
Toshio WatanabeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-5-7 Asahi-cho, Abeno-ku, Osaka 545-8586, Japan.
Toshihisa TakeuchiSecond Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka Medical College, 2-7 Daigaku-cho, Takatsuki, Osaka 569-8686, Japan.
Nobuyuki SugisakiClinical Development, Japan/Asia Clinical Research Product Creation Unit, Eisai Product Creation Systems, Eisai Co., Ltd., 4-6-10 Koishikawa, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8088, Japan.
Yasushi OkadaClinical Research Institute and Cerebrovascular Medicine, National Hospital Organization, Kyushu Medical Center, 1-8-1 Jigyohama, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka 810-8563, Japan.
Hisao OgawaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto 860-8556, Japan ; National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, 5-7-1 Fujishiro-dai, Suita, Osaka, 565-8565, Japan.
Tetsuo ArakawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-5-7 Asahi-cho, Abeno-ku, Osaka 545-8586, Japan.
Kazuma FujimotoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Saga Medical School, 5-1-1 Nabeshima, Saga 849-8501, Japan.
PLANETARIUM Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A 24-week, double-blind, clinical trial of rabeprazole for the prevention of recurrent peptic ulcers caused by low-dose aspirin (LDA) has been reported, but trials for longer than 24 weeks have not been reported. The aim of this study is to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of rabeprazole for preventing peptic ulcer recurrence on LDA therapy. Eligible patients had a history of peptic ulcers on long-term LDA (81 or 100 mg/day) therapy. Patients with no recurrence of peptic ulcers at the end of the 24-week double-blind phase with rabeprazole (10- or 5-mg once daily) or teprenone (50 mg three times daily) entered the extension phase. Rabeprazole doses were maintained for a maximum of 76 weeks, including the double-blind 24-week period and the extension phase period (long-term rabeprazole 10- and 5-mg groups). Teprenone was randomly switched to rabeprazole 10 or 5 mg for a maximum of 52 weeks in the extension phase (newly-initiated rabeprazole 10- and 5-mg groups). The full analysis set consisted of 151 and 150 subjects in the long-term rabeprazole 10- and 5-mg groups, respectively, and the cumulative recurrence rates of peptic ulcers were 2.2 and 3.7%, respectively. Recurrent peptic ulcers were not observed in the newly-initiated rabeprazole 10- and 5-mg groups. No bleeding ulcers were reported. No clinically significant safety findings, including cardiovascular events, emerged. The use of long-term rabeprazole 10- and 5-mg once daily prevents the recurrence of peptic ulcers in subjects on low-dose aspirin therapy, and both were well-tolerated.

Indexed as

bleeding ulcerlow-dose aspirinpeptic ulcerrabeprazoleserious adverse events

Identifiers

PMID26060354
PMCPMC4454079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.