Management of reflux esophagitis: does the choice of proton pump inhibitor matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the treatment of choice for reflux esophagitis (RE). The effectiveness of PPIs throughout RE management, from healing to maintenance, has not been fully studied. AIM: To compare esomeprazole with lansoprazole or pantoprazole for RE management using a management model. METHODS: Data from six studies comparing esomeprazole with lansoprazole or pantoprazole for healing (4-8 weeks) or maintenance of healing (6 months) of RE were incorporated into hypothetical management models to determine the proportion of patients in endoscopic remission after sequential healing and maintenance therapy, assuming that patients received the same PPI throughout. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve one more patient in remission with esomeprazole vs. other PPIs was estimated. The hypothetical model was validated using results from the EXPO study, which compared esomeprazole with pantoprazole for RE healing and maintenance. RESULTS: Overall, esomeprazole 40 mg produced higher rates of healing (life-table estimates) than lansoprazole 30 mg (82.4-92.6% vs. 77.5-88.8%; p < 0.01) or pantoprazole 40 mg (95.5% vs. 92.0%; p < 0.001) and higher rates of endoscopic and symptomatic remission at 6 months than lansoprazole (83.0-84.8% vs. 74.0-75.9%; p < 0.001; life-table estimates) or pantoprazole (70.9% vs. 59.6%; p < 0.0001; observed rates). In the hypothetical management model, the NNT for esomeprazole was 9 vs. lansoprazole and 8 vs. pantoprazole. The actual NNT for esomeprazole vs. pantoprazole in the EXPO study was 9 (95% confidence interval: 6; 16). CONCLUSIONS: In this management model, esomeprazole was more effective than either lansoprazole or pantoprazole for maintaining remission after sequential healing and 6 months' maintenance therapy for RE.
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 | 0.029 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".