4.6 Article

Frequency scale for symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease predicts the need for addition of prokinetics to proton pump inhibitor therapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 746-751

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05218.x

关键词

Frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD (FSSG) questionnaire; gastroesophageal reflux disease; proton pump inhibitor therapy; prokinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) monotherapy cannot cure all cases of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and combination therapy with prokinetics and PPI achieves symptomatic improvement for some GERD patients. Few studies have been performed to predict the need for prokinetics. Methods: Subjects were 163 patients ( 64 male, mean age 53.1 +/- 16.6 years) with GERD symptoms. They were evaluated using the frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD (FSSG), a GERD-specific questionnaire developed in Japan(1) and endoscopy. They were administered with rabeprazole 10 mg daily. At 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, subjects were offered a choice of four treatment regimens according to their degree of satisfaction ( 1, no need for further treatment; 2, opt for continued PPI treatment; 3, step-down to H2RA; 4, dissatisfied with present treatment, so opt for combination treatment with prokinetics, mosapride 5 mg tid). Results: The choice of treatment after 12 weeks of treatment placed 79.1% of subjects in the satisfied group ( 1, 21; 2, 98; 3, 10). After 24 weeks, 98.2% of subjects were in the satisfied group. Pretreatment FSSG scores were significantly higher in the dissatisfied group ( 4, 17.4 +/- 1.4) than in the satisfied group ( 1, 12.3 +/- 1.3; 2, 12.8 +/- 0.8; 3, 10.2 +/- 1.8) ( P < 0.05). Conclusions: The satisfaction rate with these treatment regimens was 98.2% at 24 weeks, suggesting that combination therapy with prokinetics was effective for patients dissatisfied with PPI monotherapy. The FSSG is a useful predictor of the necessity for combination therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据