Acid-Suppressive Therapy With Esomeprazole for Relief of Unexplained Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: High-quality data regarding the efficacy of acid-suppressive treatment for unexplained chest pain are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of esomeprazole in primary-care treatment of patients with unexplained chest pain stratified for frequency of reflux/regurgitation symptoms. METHODS: Patients with a ≥ 2-week history of unexplained chest pain (unrelated to gastroesophageal reflux) who had at least moderate pain on ≥ 2 of the last 7 days were stratified by heartburn/regurgitation frequency (≤ 1 day/week (stratum 1) vs. ≥ 2 days/week (stratum 2)) and randomized to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with twice-daily esomeprazole 40 mg or placebo. Chest pain relief during the last 7 days of treatment (≤ 1 day with minimal symptoms assessed daily using a 7-point scale) was analyzed by stratum in keeping with the predetermined analysis plan. RESULTS: Overall, 599 patients (esomeprazole: 297, placebo: 302) were randomized. In stratum 1, more esomeprazole than placebo recipients achieved chest pain relief (38.7% vs. 25.5%; P=0.018); no between-treatment difference was observed in stratum 2 (27.2% vs. 24.2%; P=0.54). However, esomeprazole was superior to placebo in a post-hoc analysis of the whole study population (combined strata; 33.1% vs. 24.9%; P=0.035). CONCLUSIONS: A 4-week course of high-dose esomeprazole provided statistically significant relief of unexplained chest pain in primary-care patients who experienced infrequent or no heartburn/regurgitation, but there was no such significant reduction in patients with more frequent reflux symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".