Long‐term maintenance treatment with omeprazole in children with healed erosive oesophagitis: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short-term studies show that PPIs heal erosive esophagitis in children. There are no prospective studies that examine long-term maintenance therapy of erosive esophagitis in children with and without underlying GERD-predisposing disorders. AIM: To determine prospectively the dose of omeprazole needed to maintain remission of erosive oesophagitis and reflux symptoms in children. METHODS: Patients aged 1-16 years with healed erosive reflux oesophagitis after omeprazole treatment (0.7-3.5 mg/kg/day) entered a 21-month maintenance phase where they initially received half the dose of omeprazole required to heal. Endoscopy was performed after 3, 12 and 21 months. The omeprazole dose was increased if erosive oesophagitis or reflux symptoms recurred. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients entered the study and 32 completed it. Of these, 17 (53%) remained on the maintenance dose, 12 (38%) returned to their healing dose and 3 (9%) ended the study on a dose higher than their healing dose. Three-quarters of the completers (24/32) had no erosive oesophagitis relapse. Four patients (13%) had relapse of only erosive oesophagitis, 4 (13%) had relapse of erosive oesophagitis and symptoms, and 10 (31%) had only symptomatic relapse. Of the 46 patients, 48% had GERD-predisposing disorders (neurological impairment or oesophageal atresia). Overall, 62.5% (5/8) of patients who had an erosive oesophagitis relapse had a GERD-predisposing disorder versus 33.3% (8/24) of those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Remission of erosive oesophagitis is maintained with omeprazole treatment for at least 21 months in most children aged 1-16 years, and the drug is well tolerated. To maintain remission, some 60% of patients require more than half the dose required for healing. In children with GERD-predisposing conditions, GERD is often chronic and relapsing, and requires long-term management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".