Reproducibility of a symptom response to omeprazole therapy in functional dyspepsia evaluated by a random-starting-day trial design

8Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

Background: Satisfactory treatment options for functional dyspepsia are lacking. Single subject trial designs may identify subgroups of patients with a uniform response to therapy. Aim: To test reproducibility of response in a new random-starting-day trial design developed to identify acid-related symptoms in functional dyspepsia. Methods: One hundred and nineteen patients with functional dyspepsia completed a 12-day, double-blind random-starting-day trial with an initial placebo run-in followed by switch to omeprazole on a randomized and blinded day (between days 5 and 9) with active treatment continuing for the rest of the trial. Response was defined as a sustained ≥50% reduction of a daily symptom-score within 3 days of active treatment. Fifty-nine patients repeated the random-starting-day trial at relapse of symptoms. Results: After exclusion of placebo responders, 14% (15 of 106) were classified as responders in the first and 20% (10 of 50) in the subsequent random-starting-day trial series. Sixty-eight per cent (40 of 59) of the patients reproduced their initial response with a chance-corrected agreement of 0.29. Comparing response patterns using different symptom rating-scales showed good correlation (kappa 0.60). Conclusion: Reproducibility of response in a random-starting-day trial was imperfect, mainly because of the low response rates and strict response criteria. Lack of symptom stability impairs the value of the random-starting-day trial and only patients with frequent and stable symptoms should be evaluated in this design.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Madsen, L. G., & Bytzer, P. (2004). Reproducibility of a symptom response to omeprazole therapy in functional dyspepsia evaluated by a random-starting-day trial design. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 20(3), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.02072.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