Safety and Symptom Improvement With Esomeprazole in Adolescents With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the safety of esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg once daily in adolescents with clinically diagnosed gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). A secondary aim was to assess changes in GERD symptoms after esomeprazole therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, adolescents ages 12 to 17 years inclusive received esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg once daily for 8 weeks. Adverse events and changes in clinical parameters (eg, physical examination, laboratory measurements) were evaluated to assess safety. Patients or their parents or guardians scored symptom severity daily, and investigators scored overall GERD symptom severity every 2 weeks using a 4-point scale. RESULTS: In the 148 adolescents with safety data, treatment-related and non-treatment-related adverse events were reported by 75% and 78% of patients in the esomeprazole 20- and 40-mg groups, respectively. Twenty-two patients (14.9%) experienced adverse events that were considered related to treatment; the most common were headache (8%, 12/148), abdominal pain (3%, 4/148), nausea (2%, 3/148), and diarrhea (2%, 3/148). No serious adverse events or clinically important findings in other safety assessments were observed. At baseline, 68% (100/147) had heartburn, 63% (93/147) had epigastric pain, 57% (84/147) had acid regurgitation, and 15% (22/147) had vomiting symptoms. Symptom scores decreased significantly in both the esomeprazole 20-mg and 40-mg groups by the final study week (P < 0.0001). Investigators rated 63.1% (94/149) of the patients as having moderate or severe symptoms at baseline; at the final visit, this percentage decreased significantly to 9.3% (13/140; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In adolescent patients with GERD, esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg daily for 8 weeks was well tolerated, and GERD-related symptoms were significantly reduced from baseline values in both groups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".