4.6 Article

Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitor Lansoprazole in Infants with Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 154, 期 4, 页码 514-520

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.09.054

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of lansoprazole in treating infants with symptoms attributed to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that have persisted despite a >= 1-week course of nonpharmacologic management. Study design This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized infants with persisting symptoms attributed to GERD to treatment with lansoprazole or placebo for 4 weeks. Symptoms were tracked through daily diaries and weekly visits. Efficacy was defined primarily by a >= 50% reduction in measures of feeding-related erying and secondarily by changes in other symptoms and global assessments. Safety was assessed based on the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and clinical/laboratory data. Results Of the 216 infants screened, 162 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were randomized. Of those, 44/81 infants (54%) in each group were responders-identical for lansoprazole and placebo. No significant lansoprazole-placebo differences were detected in any secondary measures or analyses of efficacy. During double-blind treatment, 62% of lansoprazole-treated subjects, experienced 1 or more treatment-emergent AEs, versus 46% of placebo recipients (P = .058). Serious AEs (SAEs), particularly lower respiratory tract infections, occurred in 12 infants, significantly more frequently in the lansoprazole group compared with the placebo group (10 vs 2; P = .032). Conclusions This study detected no difference in efficacy between lansoprazole and placebo for symptoms attributed to GERD in infants age 1 to 12 months. SAEs, particularly lower respiratory tract infections, occurred more frequently with lansoprazole than with placebo. (J Pediatr 2009,154:514-20)

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