ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2025
Drug treatment strategies for erosive esophagitis in adults: a narrative review.
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Erosive esophagitis (EE) is the second most common phenotype of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). While proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are considered the mainstay treatment for healing and maintaining remission of EE, a significant proportion of patients, particularly those with advanced grades, fail to respond adequately. This review provides an updated overview of the current pharmacological treatment options for EE. Methods: An extensive electronic literature search was performed using PubMed database to identify relevant articles. The search included prospective clinical trials, observational trials, case-control studies, systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis, and narrative reviews describing pharmacological therapy for adult patients with EE. Articles were limited to English language publications. Search terms encompassed various treatment modalities including PPIs, potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs), histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, prokinetics, rebamipide and alginates. Key Content and Findings: Research has shown varying effectiveness across different treatments for EE. While randomized controlled trials found alginates, sucralfate, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists to have limited healing efficacy, PPIs remain the most effective treatment, achieving healing rates of 75-95% after 8 weeks, though symptom resolution reaches about 60-85%. Among PPIs, esomeprazole shows slightly better healing outcomes compared to others. However, PPI effectiveness decreases in advanced EE cases [Los Angeles (LA) grades C/D], with healing rates dropping to 60-70%. More recently, P-CABs have demonstrated promising results, demonstrating healing rates non-inferior to PPIS but superior in patients with advanced EE or PPI-resistent EE. Given that most patients experience relapse upon discontinuation, maintaining PPI or PCAB therapy is crucial for preventing EE recurrence. Conclusions: The future of EE management lies in a more personalized approach that takes into account disease severity, PPI response, and patient preferences. While PPIs remain the mainstay of treatment, P-CABs represent a promising new therapeutic option, particularly for severe and PPI-resistant cases. The addition of nighttime to bedtime H2RAs or use of double PPI dose may benefit refractory cases. Further studies are needed to directly compare PPIs and P-CABs in different EE grades and evaluate the value of adjunctive therapies.
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.