Partial symptom‐response to proton pump inhibitors in patients with non‐erosive reflux disease or reflux oesophagitis – a <i>post hoc</i> analysis of 5796 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although most patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) benefit from proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, some experience only partial symptom relief. AIM: To determine the prevalence of partial heartburn response to PPIs and its impact on health-related quality of life. METHODS: Four randomised, double-blind studies in adults with reflux disease compared esomeprazole 40 mg/day or 20 mg/day with omeprazole 20 mg/day, or esomeprazole 40 mg/day with pantoprazole 40 mg/day. Patients with heartburn on ≥4 days during the 1-week recall period at baseline were included. Partial response was defined as heartburn on ≥3 days during the last treatment week and reduced heartburn frequency after 4 weeks of treatment compared with baseline. RESULTS: The analysis included 2645 patients with non-erosive reflux disease (mean age: 48.8 years; 54.4% women) and 3151 patients with reflux oesophagitis (mean age: 50.6 years; 37.1% women). At baseline, most patients reported heartburn on 5-7 days (non-erosive reflux disease: 82.2%; reflux oesophagitis: 86.8%). Partial heartburn response occurred in 19.9% of patients with non-erosive reflux disease and 14.0% with reflux oesophagitis. Defining partial response as heartburn on ≥2 days increased these rates to 26.2% and 19.3%, respectively; defining partial response as heartburn of moderate or severe intensity on ≥3 days decreased these rates to 6.4% and 5.3%, respectively. Nonresponse to PPIs was rare (non-erosive reflux disease: 2.4%; reflux oesophagitis: 1.4%). CONCLUSION: Using our conservative definition, partial heartburn response to proton pump inhibitor therapy occurred in 14-20% of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients, more commonly in non-erosive reflux disease than in reflux oesophagitis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".