Influence of gastric mucosal status on success of stepwise acid suppressive therapy for dyspepsia

0Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background The most effective initial treatment strategy of dyspepsia is still under debate. Individual biological characteristics, such as condition of gastric mucosa, might contribute to selection of the most appropriate acid suppression treatment strategy. Aim To assess whether pre-treatment testing of gastric mucosal status is relevant for treatment success in an RCT comparing step-up and step-down therapies in newly diagnosed dyspepsia patients. Methods Baseline serum samples were collected to assess gastric mucosal status using serum levels of pepsinogens-I&II, gastrin-17, and Helicobacter pylori IgAIgG-antibodies. The 6-month treatment success was compared between step-up and step-down for patients with serum diagnoses: normal; gastritis; corpus atrophy or antrum atrophy. Results In all, 519 patients (MF: 249270, age: 47 (18-85) years, 29%H. pylori+) were randomized to step-up (n = 293) or step-down (n = 226). Normal mucosa, gastritis and corpus atrophy were diagnosed serologically in 70%, 28% and 2% of the patients, evenly distributed between the strategies (P = 0.65). Treatment success was achieved in respectively, 69%, 70% and 70% for the serum diagnosis groups, and did not differ between the strategies. Conclusions Dyspepsia treatment success could not be predicted by gastric mucosal status. Therefore, serum diagnosis of gastric mucosal status is no useful tool for patient allocation to acid suppressive treatment strategies. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Van Marrewijk, C. J., Van Oijen, M. G. H., Paloheimo, L. I., Fransen, G. A. J., Mujakovic, S., Muris, J. W. M., … Jansen, J. B. M. J. (2009). Influence of gastric mucosal status on success of stepwise acid suppressive therapy for dyspepsia. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 30(1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04001.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free