Esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg is efficacious in the long-term management of patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a placebo-controlled trial of on-demand therapy for 6 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On-demand therapy may offer an effective approach to the long-term management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) without oesophagitis. AIM: To examine the efficacy of the novel proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole as on-demand therapy in endoscopy-negative GORD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Endoscopy-negative GORD patients who achieved complete resolution of heartburn after short-term esomeprazole or omeprazole treatment (n = 721) were randomized to esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 282), 40 mg (n = 293) or placebo (n = 146) on demand (maximum one dose/day) for 6 months. The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were time to study discontinuation due to (i) unwillingness to continue and (ii) inadequate control of heartburn, respectively. RESULTS: Both doses of esomeprazole were more effective than placebo. During the 6-month period, 42% of placebo recipients discontinued treatment due to unwillingness to continue, compared with 8% and 11% of esomeprazole 20 mg and 40 mg recipients, respectively. Overall, more patients treated with esomeprazole were free from gastrointestinal symptoms after 6 months of on-demand therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole 20 mg was superior to placebo for on-demand treatment of GORD; a higher dose did not confer additional clinical benefit. Over 90% of patients were willing to continue on-demand treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg over a 6-month period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".