4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Treatment of chronic posterior laryngitis with esomeprazole

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 116, 期 2, 页码 254-260

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000192173.00498.ba

关键词

esomeprazole; reflux laryngitis; chronic posterior laryngitis; clinical trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of acid-suppressive therapy with the proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole on the signs and symptoms of chronic posterior laryngitis (CPL) in patients with suspected reflux laryngitis. Study Design. Prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial that compared twice-daily esomeprazole 40 mg with placebo for 16 weeks. Methods: Eligible patients had a history of one or more CPL symptoms (throat clearing, cough, globus, sore throat, or hoarseness) and laryngoscopic signs indicating reflux laryngitis based on CPL index (CPLI) scores measured during a screening laryngoscopy. Patients were randomized to treatment if their 7-day screening diary-card recordings showed a cumulative primary symptom score of 9 or higher and they had 3 or more days with moderately severe symptoms based on a 7-point scale. Efficacy was assessed by changes in symptoms as recorded by patients and investigators and by changes in CPLI scores based on laryngoscopic examinations. Results: The patients' primary CPL symptom at final visit (primary efficacy end point) was resolved in 14.7% (14195) and 16.0% (8/50) of patients in the esomeprazole and placebo groups, respectively (P = .799). Esomeprazole and placebo were not significantly different for change from baseline to the final visit in mean total CPLI (-1.66 +/- 2.13 vs. -2.0 +/- 2.55, respectively; P = .446) or any other secondary efficacy end points based on patient diary card or investigator assessments. Conclusion: This study provides no evidence of a therapeutic benefit of treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily for 16 weeks compared with placebo for signs and symptoms associated with CPL.

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

4.5
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