SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • gastro-esophageal reflux disease;
  • non-erosive reflux disease;
  • PPI

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information

Background  Symptomatic response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) is often reported as lower than in patients with erosive reflux disease (ERD). However, the definition of NERD differs across clinical trials. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the rate of symptom relief in response to PPI in NERD patients.

Methods  MEDLINE (1966–2010), Cochrane Comprehensive Trial Register (1997–2010) and EMBASE (1985–2010) databases were searched and manual searches from studies’ references were performed. Randomized clinical trials were selected that included patients with heartburn, and analyzed the effect of short-term PPI treatment. The primary outcome of selected studies was defined as complete or partial heartburn relief. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality of selected articles. Random effects models and meta-regression were used to combine and analyze results.

Key Results  The pooled estimate of complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of PPI therapy in patients with ERD was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.74) (32 studies), vs 0.50 (0.43–0.57) (eight studies) in empirically treated patients, 0.49 (0.44–0.55) (12 studies) in patients defined as non-erosive by negative endoscopy, and 0.73 (0.69–0.77) (two studies) in patients defined as non-erosive by both negative endoscopy and a positive pH-test.

Conclusions & Inferences  In well-defined NERD patients, the estimated complete symptom response rate after PPI therapy is comparable to the response rate in patients with ERD. The previously reported low response rate in studies with patients classified as NERD is likely the result of inclusion of patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms that do not have reflux disease.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is described by the Montreal definition as a condition in which reflux of gastric content into the esophagus leads to troublesome symptoms and/or complications.1 The most frequently reported symptom of GERD is heartburn, followed by regurgitation.2 The prevalence of the symptom heartburn is high, with 12–20% of the general population experiencing heartburn at least weekly.3,4 The symptom regurgitation is less common, with a prevalence of 6%.3 Reflux symptoms are accompanied by a decrease in health-related quality of life and an increase of healthcare costs due to frequent physician visits and prescription of chronic medication.5

Patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of reflux disease are often empirically treated with lifestyle advice and acid suppressive drugs, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).6 When patients do not respond to standard therapy, testing is performed to challenge the initial diagnosis and to investigate the reasons of treatment refractoriness. An upper endoscopy can confirm the diagnosis of reflux disease and is appropriate to rule out malignancy and other mucosal abnormalities of the esophagus.7 While the presence of erosive reflux disease (ERD) confirms the diagnosis, a negative endoscopy cannot be used to rule out reflux disease as a substantial part of the patients with reflux disease have no abnormalities seen on endoscopy, a condition known as non-erosive reflux disease (NERD).8,9 Once no abnormalities are found at endoscopy, an ambulatory 24-h pH monitoring, combined with intraluminal impedance measurements can help define entity, timing, chemical characteristics of reflux as well as relationship of the reflux episodes to the patient’s symptoms.10,11 The severity of esophageal acid exposure correlates with the degree of mucosal damage,12 and finding a pathological amount of acid reflux and/or an association between heartburn symptoms and reflux events, confirms the diagnosis of GERD. Patients with positive findings at pH-impedance monitoring without distal esophageal mucosal breaks are classified as having NERD. However, if no relationship is found between acid reflux and perceived heartburn and no excessive esophageal acid exposure is present, gastro-esophageal reflux is not the cause of the patient’s symptoms, and patients are classified as having ‘functional heartburn’ according to the Rome III criteria 13 or functional dyspepsia depending on the symptoms that are dominant.

The efficacy of PPI therapy in healing esophageal erosions is very high with a number needed to treat for benefit of 1.7 (95% CI 1.5–2.1), one of the lowest seen in clinical medicine.14 Besides healing reflux esophagitis, treatment with a PPI is very effective for the symptomatic relief of heartburn.6 Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of PPI in relieving symptoms among different types of GERD generally state a larger rate of non-response in patients with NERD than in patients with ERD.15–17

In most clinical trials, NERD patients are defined only by the presence of typical reflux symptoms and a negative endoscopy. However, without appropriate functional testing it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between functional heartburn, functional dyspepsia, and true NERD. The heterogeneity of the trial participants across studies could cause underestimation of the response rates to PPI treatment in NERD.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature aiming: (i) to estimate the response to PPI therapy in ‘true’ NERD patients (in whom diagnosis was confirmed with pH testing) compared to patients with ERD, and (ii) to estimate whether the response to PPI therapy would vary according to different diagnostic criteria for NERD.

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information

Search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE (1966–2010), Cochrane Comprehensive Trial Register (1997–2010) and EMBASE (1985–2010) databases. The search strategy consisted of a combination of the following MESH terms and text words: gastro-esophageal reflux, GERD, non-erosive reflux, NERD, heartburn, pyrosis, regurgitation, and terms describing treatment: proton pump inhibitor, PPI, omeprazole, esomeprazole, rabeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, and dexlansoprazole. A Cochrane filter for identifying randomized trials was applied to the search results. Furthermore, we manually searched reference lists from trials obtained through electronic searching to identify additional studies of interest.

Selection of studies

Articles were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis if they fulfilled the following criteria: Studies included adults of either gender with heartburn as the predominant symptom. Subjects underwent short-term treatment with a PPI (esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, or dexlansoprazole) and study outcome measures were compared using a control group treated with another pharmacological intervention or placebo. The studies were divided into groups treating ERD or NERD patients (Fig. 1). Subclassification of studies treating NERD patients were based on the way NERD was defined in the inclusion criteria of trials. Subcategory (a) contains patients with heartburn in whom no endoscopy was performed, category (b) contains patients that were defined as NERD by the presence of heartburn and a normal endoscopic assessment, and category (c) contains patients defined as NERD by the presence of heartburn, a normal endoscopic assessment and a positive 24-h pH-measurement (Fig. 1). The pH-measurement was considered positive when there was either abnormal esophageal acid exposure or a positive temporal relationship between symptoms and reflux events during the measurement. The primary outcome of selected studies was defined as complete heartburn relief or partial heartburn relief. Complete heartburn relief is defined as the complete absence of the symptom at the end of the treatment period. Partial heartburn relief is specified as ‘no more than 1 episode in the previous 7 days of mild severity’ in all studies, except in three studies where it is specified as an improvement in frequency from the baseline score.

image

Figure 1.  Classification of erosive and non-erosive reflux disease in the inclusion of clinical trials.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality of selected articles using a data extraction form. The following clinical features mentioned in the trials were extracted: setting (primary, secondary, or tertiary centres); number of participating centers; country of origin; inclusion and exclusion criteria used; baseline characteristics of study participants; study drug; frequency of dosing; study duration; reported complete relief of heartburn; definition of partial heartburn relief; reported partial relief of heartburn. Assessment of study quality was performed according to the Jadad scoring system.18 A score of 0–5 was given depending on the article’s description of randomization, description of the method of blinding, and drop-outs during the trial were adequately described.

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using JMP v.7 and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.2. First, after obtaining the proportion of individuals achieving symptom relief, the relief rate and its respective 95% confidence interval (CI) on PPI treatment were calculated for each study. Statistical heterogeneity across the various studies was then tested with the use of Q-statistic.19 A PQ-value <0.10 indicated a significant statistical heterogeneity across studies, allowing for the use of a random effects model. Heterogeneity was quantified with the I2 metric, which is independent of the number of studies included in the meta-analysis.20I2 measures values between 0% and 100%, with higher values suggesting a greater degree of heterogeneity (I= 0–25%: no heterogeneity; I= 25–50%: moderate heterogeneity; I= 50–75%: large heterogeneity; I= 75–100%: extreme heterogeneity).

As significant heterogeneity was found across all studies included, a random effects (RE) model was used to calculate pooled rates for symptom relief.21 These rates indicate the estimate proportion of patients reporting heartburn relief across studies. As these rates are among patients on active treatment, and no direct comparisons with placebo or control treatment are done in the studies, neither the relative risk or odds ratios for improvement vs placebo or control, nor the number needed to treat can be calculated.

The main analyses on symptom response calculated the pooled estimates of complete relief at week 4, partial relief at week 4, complete relief at week 8, and partial relief at week 8.

Meta regression

Potential association between the placebo response and study quality as measured by the Jadad score was determined by calculating contingency coefficients in the meta-regression. The log event rate of symptom relief on PPI therapy was the dependent variable in the meta-regression model, and the independent variable was the quality of study estimated by the Jadad score. Coefficients that reflect the percent increase in placebo response for each unit increase of the independent variable and the 95% CI for the respective coefficients were calculated. Additional analyses were performed using type, dose of PPI used, patients’ age and gender as independent variables.

Assessment of publication bias

Publication bias was determined by the funnel plot of Beggs & Mazumdar’s rank correlation test 22 and Egger’s intercept test.23 Funnel plot of studies’ standard error vs logit symptom relief rates is also included in this report.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information

Eligible studies

The search strategy identified a total of 4995 references that met the search criteria. Figure 2 shows the flow of this meta-analysis, listing studies excluded and citing reasons for exclusion. A total of 59 randomized controlled trials met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis comprising a total of 26 885 patients in active treatment arms (see supplementary Table S1 online).15,16,24–80 The studies were published between 1988 and 2009. Thirty-seven studies described multiple active treatment arms with different dosages or types of PPI. Fifty-seven studies were parallel group design and the remaining two studies used a crossover design. Fifty-seven studies were double blinded, while two studies used an open label design. Three studies added pH-metry to the inclusion criteria for NERD, no clinical trial has combined the pH-metry with impedance tracings.

image

Figure 2.  Flowchart of the meta-analysis.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Significant heterogeneity was found (< 0.0001, I2 = 93.9%) across clinical trials using the I2-metric. Heterogeneity was quantified across an N of 84 studies, including studies and sub-studies that for separate treatment groups reported complete relief at week 4 as the main outcome. Complete relief of heartburn at week 4 was chosen as the primary outcome for our analysis as it was the most commonly reported outcome.

Symptom relief after 4 weeks of PPI therapy

Thirty-two studies described the rate of complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of PPI therapy in patients with ERD. The pooled estimate of complete relief after 4 weeks in patients with ERD was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.74) (Fig. 3). Twenty-two studies described the complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of PPI therapy in patients with NERD, of which eight studies from subcategory (a), defining NERD by the presence of heartburn without the performance of an upper endoscopy, 12 studies in subcategory (b), defining NERD by the presence of heartburn and a normal endoscopy, and two studies in subcategory (c), defining NERD by the presence of heartburn, a normal upper endoscopy and a positive pH measurement. One of these studies reported outcome after 2 weeks of PPI treatment. The pooled estimate of complete symptom relief after 4 weeks for patients with NERD was 0.50 (95% CI 0.43–0.57), 0.49 (95% CI 0.44–0.55), and 0.73 (95% CI 0.69–0.77) for NERD subcategories (a–c) respectively (Figs 4–6).

image

Figure 3.  Studies reporting complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with erosive reflux disease.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 4.  Studies reporting complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with heartburn in whom no endoscopy was performed (group a).

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 5.  Studies reporting complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with non-erosive reflux disease defined by the presence of heartburn and a normal endoscopy (group b).

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 6.  Studies reporting complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with non-erosive reflux disease defined by the presence of heartburn, a normal endoscopy and a positive pH measurement (group c). *Response rate at 2-weeks.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Partial relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of PPI therapy was reported by six studies including patients with ERD and the pooled estimate was 0.75 (95% CI 0.71–0.78) (data not shown). Nineteen studies described the partial relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of PPI therapy in patients with NERD, of which eight studies from subcategory (a), 10 studies from subcategory (b), and one study from subcategory (c). The pooled estimate of partial symptom relief after 4 weeks was 0.71 (95% CI 0.59–0.81), 0.65 (95% CI 0.61–0.69), and 0.85 (95% CI 0.55–0.96) for NERD subcategories (a–c) respectively (data not shown).

Symptom relief after 8 weeks of PPI therapy

Complete relief of heartburn after 8 weeks of PPI therapy was reported by six studies including patients with ERD and the pooled estimate was 0.73 (95% CI 0.59–0.84) (data not shown). Three studies described the complete relief of heartburn after 8 weeks of PPI in patients with heartburn in whom no endoscopy was performed, the pooled estimate was 0.47 (95% CI 0.43–0.51) (data not shown). No studies reported complete symptom relief at 8 weeks in NERD groups defined by endoscopy or by pH measurement.

Partial relief of heartburn after 8 weeks of PPI therapy was reported by three studies including patients with ERD and the pooled estimate was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72–0.80) (data not shown). Three studies described partial relief of heartburn after 8 weeks of PPI therapy in patients with NERD, of which two studies treated patients empirically and one study classified NERD by a normal endoscopy. No studies classifying NERD by a normal endoscopy and a positive pH measurement reported partial symptom relief at 8 weeks. The pooled estimate of partial symptom relief after 8 weeks was 0.69 (95% CI 0.64–0.74) for empirically treated patients and 0.76 (95% CI 0.66–0.84) for NERD defined by endoscopy respectively (data not shown).

Meta-regression analysis and publication bias

Symptom response to PPI did not significantly correlate with Jadad score, age or gender of the study subjects, study setting, type or dosage of PPI used in the study (> 0.05). Funnel plot analysis showed no immediately apparent asymmetry, arguing against the presence of a publication bias (Fig. S1).

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information

This meta-analysis demonstrates that the estimated rates of complete and partial symptom relief after short-term PPI therapy are lower in poorly characterized NERD patients compared to the response rate in patients with ERD. However, in patients in whom the diagnosis of NERD is supported by a positive pH-measurement, the estimated complete and partial response rates after 4 weeks of PPI therapy are comparable to the response rate in ERD.

This finding is in contrast to the widespread belief that NERD patients are less responsive to PPI,6,17,81,82 indicating that when characterized correctly, NERD patients do not have a poorer response to PPI than patients with ERD. The apparent contrast with prior views on NERD derives from the issue that in the majority of trials patients have been labeled as NERD because they suffered from symptoms of heartburn in the absence of esophageal erosions. While to many clinicians heartburn and regurgitation are equivalent to acid reflux, in effect during 24-h pH measurement, up to 50% of subjects with typical reflux symptoms have a physiologic amount of acid exposure.83,84 Using the symptom association probability, a score measuring the correlation between acid reflux episodes and symptoms,85 a similar distribution is found, and in half of the subjects reporting typical reflux symptoms these symptoms are not related to actual reflux.86 This supports the theory that patients with heartburn are a heterogenous group and not all patients with a normal endoscopy can be regarded as NERD. In those patients with heartburn in whom no abnormalities during upper endoscopy and a 24-h pH measurement are found, gastro-esophageal acid reflux can be excluded as a cause of their symptoms, and they are classified as functional heartburn according to the Rome III criteria.13 Functional heartburn is a functional disorder in which symptoms are related to psychological factors and disturbed visceral perception, while reflux of acidic gastric content does not play a role. Acid suppressive therapy is thus not effective for the treatment of functional heartburn and tricyclic antidepressants and cognitive behaviour therapy can be used.87

A careful characterization of NERD patients thus seems imperative to obtain representative results for future clinical trials, both in studies with new acid-suppressive agents and in studies aimed at NERD patients refractory to PPI, otherwise pollution of the study population with functional heartburn and dyspepsia patients will significantly underestimate the true effect of the drug or operation on reflux. Characterization can be done with 24-h pH measurements, as has been done in the studies by Richter et al. and Johnsson et al.79,80 However, the addition of 24-h cathether based pH measurements to clinical trial inclusion criteria could have a negative effect on patient enrolment. A validated questionnaire such as the RDQ could be used as an alternative to characterize true GERD patients, as it has shown to increase sensitivity of GERD diagnosis.88

The rate of antireflux therapy failure is an important statistic in the clinical setting as well, as persisting reflux symptoms are one of the most frequent reasons for consultation of a gastro-enterologist. PPI failure in the clinical setting can be defined as the persistence of erosions during endoscopy, pathological acid reflux during pH-metry performed under PPI, or the persistence of typical symptoms. In NERD patients the analysis of symptoms is the most appropriate, as erosions are by definition not present in NERD patient and a clear cut relation between acid reflux episodes and symptoms (a positive SAP or SI 11) can be present in the absence of pathological acid reflux. In this meta-analysis PPI failure rate was calculated for both complete and partial symptom relief. We believe the complete relief of symptoms is closest to an objective definition of PPI success, being the most stringent method and thereby reducing the concomitant interindividual variance of subjective symptom improvement scores. When using the latter criterion and when adequately characterizing NERD patients by a negative endoscopy and a positive 24-h pH measurement, the PPI failure rate is only between 15% and 27%. This figure is compatible with failure rates in patients with ERD, and far from the 40–50% of PPI failure, which is often reported.

An additional observation in this meta-analysis is that the estimated complete symptom relief rate in patients with ERD and in empirically treated patients after 4 weeks of PPI therapy does not differ from the estimated rates in the same groups after 8 weeks of PPI therapy. This indicates that a short follow-up in the clinical setting is sufficient to estimate whether a patient will respond symptomatically to a PPI, and prolonging of the same treatment regimen in non-responders would be of limited value. This rapid response is in accordance with a previously calculated optimal cut-off value to assess symptomatic response to PPI of 1 week.89 A similar inference for research purposes could be that a follow-up of 4 weeks in clinical trials should be sufficient to observe a treatment effect, if present. It should be taken into consideration, however, that no 8-week data was available for patients with NERD defined by endoscopy with or without pH-measurement. A potential limitation in this respect is that our meta-analysis is conducted using heartburn as the main outcome, whereas other GERD-related symptoms might take longer to respond to PPI treatment.

The main potential limitation of the present meta-analysis is the small number of clinical trials including NERD patients after appropriate functional testing, although it was performed on sizeable groups. The definition for a positive pH-measurement differed slightly between studies. To define pathological esophageal acid exposure Richter et al.79 used a cut-off value of 5% time with pH < 4, while Johnsson et al.80 used 3.2% of total time or 3.4% of supine time with pH < 4 as the cut-off value and these authors also included patients with a SAP > 95%. Both approaches lead to a selection of NERD patients in which acid reflux underlies the present symptoms, however, the approach by Johnsson et al. leads to a less stringent selection and will certainly not lead to an overestimation of PPI response. Additionally Johnson et al. reported the response to PPI after 2 weeks instead of the regularly used period of 4 weeks. The expected response rate is higher after four than after 2 weeks, so the inclusion of the study in the meta-analysis will certainly not lead to an overestimation of the response to PPI in this group. A potential limitation of the present study is that it was conducted with relief of heartburn as the predominant outcome measure, as this is the most frequently reported reflux symptom.2 It must be noted that part of the GERD patients present with other dominant symptoms,88 and no analysis was performed on the response to PPI of those less prevalent reflux related symptoms as regurgitation or chest pain. Therefore no conclusions can be drawn regarding the response of those symptoms to PPI in NERD patients.

The management of the non-responding GERD patients with proven acid-related symptoms remains challenging however. Firstly, careful instructions on the use of PPIs should be given, as only 36% of patients treated in primairy care appropriately administer their PPI.90 Frequently applied strategies include a switch of PPI type or doubling the PPI dosage. There is no evidence to support these strategies, a finding supported by the lack of association between symptomatic response and PPI type and dosage in this study. There might be a role for new drug formulations or for drugs with more extensive acid suppressive potential, these are extensively discussed elsewhere.91,92 New drugs that inhibit the occurrence of both acidic and weakly acidic reflux episodes will not be on the market for the next few years. Finally, if maximum medical treatment provides insufficient symptom relief in patients with proven acid-related symtomps, surgical intervention may be warranted.

In conclusion, our analyses support the conclusion that when NERD is well defined with functional studies, PPI therapy is as effective in NERD patients as it is in patients with ERD and the PPI failure rate is only around 20%. We argue that the previously reported lower response rates in patients with NERD are the result of contamination of the NERD study populations with subjects with functional heartburn and functional dyspepsia.

Funding

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information

A.J. Bredenoord is supported by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

Disclosure

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information

P. Weijenborg, F. Cremonini, and A. Smout have no conflicts of interest. A. Bredenoord: research funding of Astra Zeneca and Movetis-Shire; lecture fees of AstraZeneca and MMS. P.W. Weijenborg had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Author contribution

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information

PWW studied concept and design, acquired data, analyzed and interpreted data, drafted manuscript, approved final submitted draft; FC studied concept and design, analyzed and interpreted data, critically revised manuscript for important intellectual content, approved final submitted draft; AJB studied concept and design, acquired data, interpreted data, supervised, critically revised manuscript for important intellectual content, approved final submitted draft; AJPMS studied concept and design, interpreted data, supervised, critically revised manuscript for important intellectual content, approved final submitted draft.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information
  • 1
    Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R. The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:190020; quiz 1943.
    Direct Link:
  • 2
    Klauser AG, Schindlbeck NE, Müller-Lissner SA. Symptoms in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Lancet 1990; 335: 2058.
  • 3
    Locke GR, Talley NJ, Fett SL, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ. Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 144856.
  • 4
    Moayyedi P, Axon ATR. Review article: gastro-oesophageal reflux disease – The extent of the problem. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 22(Suppl 1): 119.
  • 5
    Irvine EJ. Quality of life assessment in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Gut 2004; 53(Suppl 4): iv359.
  • 6
    van Pinxteren B, Numans ME, Bonis PA, Lau J. Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 3: CD002095. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002095.pub3.
  • 7
    Lichtenstein DR, Cash BD, Davila R et al. Role of endoscopy in the management of GERD. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 21924.
  • 8
    Ronkainen J, Aro P, Storskrubb T et al. High prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux symptoms and esophagitis with or without symptoms in the general adult Swedish population: a Kalixanda study report. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005; 40: 27585.
  • 9
    Zagari RM, Fuccio L, Wallander M-A et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms, oesophagitis and Barrett’s oesophagus in the general population: the Loiano-Monghidoro study. Gut 2008; 57: 13549.
  • 10
    Bredenoord AJ. Impedance-pH monitoring: new standard for measuring gastro-oesophageal reflux. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2008; 20: 4349.
  • 11
    Weusten BL, Akkermans LM, vanBerge-Henegouwen GP, Smout AJ. Symptom perception in gastroesophageal reflux disease is dependent on spatiotemporal reflux characteristics. Gastroenterology 1995; 108: 173944.
  • 12
    Bredenoord AJ, Hemmink GJM, Smout AJPM. Relationship between gastro-oesophageal reflux pattern and severity of mucosal damage. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2009; 21: 80712.
  • 13
    Galmiche JP, Clouse RE, Bálint A et al. Functional esophageal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 145965.
  • 14
    Khan M, Santana J, Donnellan C, Preston C, Moayyedi P. Medical treatments in the short term management of reflux oesophagitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; CD003244. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003244.pub2.
  • 15
    Bate CM, Green JR, Axon AT et al. Omeprazole is more effective than cimetidine for the relief of all grades of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-associated heartburn, irrespective of the presence or absence of endoscopic oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997; 11: 75563.
  • 16
    Galmiche JP, Barthelemy P, Hamelin B. Treating the symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a double-blind comparison of omeprazole and cisapride. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997; 11: 76573.
  • 17
    Dean BB, Gano AD Jr, Knight K, Ofman JJ, Fass R. Effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in nonerosive reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 65664.
  • 18
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 112.
  • 19
    Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954; 10: 10129.
  • 20
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 153958.
  • 21
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 17788.
  • 22
    Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1088101.
  • 23
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 62934.
  • 24
    Venables TL, Newland RD, Patel AC, Hole J, Wilcock C, Turbitt ML. Omeprazole 10 milligrams once daily, omeprazole 20 milligrams once daily, or ranitidine 150 milligrams twice daily, evaluated as initial therapy for the relief of symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in general practice. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997; 32: 96573.
  • 25
    Jones R, Crouch SL. Low-dose lansoprazole provides greater relief of heartburn and epigastric pain than low-dose omeprazole in patients with acid-related dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13: 4139.
  • 26
    Maton PN, Orlando R, Joelsson B. Efficacy of omeprazole versus ranitidine for symptomatic treatment of poorly responsive acid reflux disease-a prospective, controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13: 81926.
  • 27
    Kaplan-Machlis B, Spiegler GE, Zodet MW, Revicki DA. Effectiveness and costs of omeprazole vs ranitidine for treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care clinics in West Virginia. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 62430.
  • 28
    Armstrong D, Paré P, Pericak D, Pyzyk M. Symptom relief in gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, controlled comparison of pantoprazole and nizatidine in a mixed patient population with erosive esophagitis or endoscopy-negative reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 284957.
  • 29
    Talley NJ, Moore MG, Sprogis A, Katelaris P. Randomised controlled trial of pantoprazole versus ranitidine for the treatment of uninvestigated heartburn in primary care. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 4237.
  • 30
    van Zyl J, van Rensburg C, Vieweg W, Fischer R. Efficacy and safety of pantoprazole versus ranitidine in the treatment of patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Digestion 2004; 70: 619.
  • 31
    Armstrong D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJO, Barkun AN et al. Heartburn-dominant, uninvestigated dyspepsia: a comparison of “PPI-start” and “H2-RA-start” management strategies in primary care – The CADET-HR Study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21: 1189202.
  • 32
    Johnson DA, Orr WC, Crawley JA et al. Effect of esomeprazole on nighttime heartburn and sleep quality in patients with GERD: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 191422.
    Direct Link:
  • 33
    Eggleston A, Katelaris PH, Nandurkar S, Thorpe P, Holtmann G. Clinical trial: the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care – Prospective randomized comparison of rabeprazole 20 mg with esomeprazole 20 and 40 mg. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 29: 96778.
  • 34
    Havelund T, Laursen LS, Skoubo-Kristensen E et al. Omeprazole and ranitidine in treatment of reflux oesophagitis: double blind comparative trial. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988; 296: 8992.
  • 35
    Sandmark S, Carlsson R, Fausa O, Lundell L. Omeprazole or ranitidine in the treatment of reflux esophagitis. Results of a double-blind, randomized, Scandinavian multicenter study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1988; 23: 62532.
  • 36
    Bate CM, Keeling PW, O’Morain C et al. Comparison of omeprazole and cimetidine in reflux oesophagitis: symptomatic, endoscopic, and histological evaluations. Gut 1990; 31: 96872.
  • 37
    Dehn TC, Shepherd HA, Colin-Jones D, Kettlewell MG, Carroll NJ. Double blind comparison of omeprazole (40 mg od) versus cimetidine (400 mg qd) in the treatment of symptomatic erosive reflux oesophagitis, assessed endoscopically, histologically and by 24 h pH monitoring. Gut 1990; 31: 50913.
  • 38
    Bardhan KD, Hawkey CJ, Long RG et al. Lansoprazole versus ranitidine for the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. UK Lansoprazole Clinical Research Group. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1995; 9: 14551.
  • 39
    Corinaldesi R, Valentini M, Belaïche J, Colin R, Geldof H, Maier C. Pantoprazole and omeprazole in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis: a European multicentre study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1995; 9: 66771.
  • 40
    Koop H, Schepp W, Dammann HG, Schneider A, Lühmann R, Classen M. Comparative trial of pantoprazole and ranitidine in the treatment of reflux esophagitis. Results of a German multicenter study. J Clin Gastroenterol 1995; 20: 1925.
  • 41
    Mössner J, Hölscher AH, Herz R, Schneider A. A double-blind study of pantoprazole and omeprazole in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis: a multicentre trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1995; 9: 3216.
  • 42
    Mulder CJ, Dekker W, Gerretsen M. Lansoprazole 30 mg versus omeprazole 40 mg in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis grade II, III and IVa (a Dutch multicentre trial). Dutch Study Group. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996; 8: 11016.
  • 43
    van Rensburg CJ, Honiball PJ, Grundling HD et al. Efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole 40 mg versus 80 mg in patients with reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1996; 10: 397401.
  • 44
    Carlsson R, Dent J, Watts R et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care: an international study of different treatment strategies with omeprazole. International GORD Study Group. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998; 10: 11924.
  • 45
    Cloud ML, Enas N, Humphries TJ, Bassion S. Rabeprazole in treatment of acid peptic diseases: results of three placebo-controlled dose-response clinical trials in duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Rabeprazole Study Group. Dig Dis Sci 1998; 43: 9931000.
  • 46
    Dettmer A, Vogt R, Sielaff F, Lühmann R, Schneider A, Fischer R. Pantoprazole 20 mg is effective for relief of symptoms and healing of lesions in mild reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; 12: 86572.
  • 47
    Dekkers CP, Beker JA, Thjodleifsson B, Gabryelewicz A, Bell NE, Humphries TJ. Double-blind comparison [correction of Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison] of rabeprazole 20 mg vs. omeprazole 20 mg in the treatment of erosive or ulcerative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The European Rabeprazole Study Group. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13: 4957.
  • 48
    Festen HP, Schenk E, Tan G, Snel P, Nelis F. Omeprazole versus high-dose ranitidine in mild gastroesophageal reflux disease: short- and long-term treatment. The Dutch Reflux Study Group. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 9316.
    Direct Link:
  • 49
    Hatlebakk JG, Hyggen A, Madsen PH et al. Heartburn treatment in primary care: randomised, double blind study for 8 weeks. BMJ 1999; 319: 5503.
  • 50
    Jansen JB, Van Oene JC. Standard-dose lansoprazole is more effective than high-dose ranitidine in achieving endoscopic healing and symptom relief in patients with moderately severe reflux oesophagitis. The Dutch Lansoprazole Study Group. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13: 161120.
  • 51
    Farley A, Wruble LD, Humphries TJ. Rabeprazole versus ranitidine for the treatment of erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Raberprazole Study Group. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 18949.
    Direct Link:
  • 52
    Kahrilas PJ, Falk GW, Johnson DA et al. Esomeprazole improves healing and symptom resolution as compared with omeprazole in reflux oesophagitis patients: a randomized controlled trial. The esomeprazole study investigators. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000; 14: 124958.
  • 53
    Richter JE, Bochenek W. Oral pantoprazole for erosive esophagitis: a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Pantoprazole US GERD Study Group. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 307180.
    Direct Link:
  • 54
    van Zyl JH, de K Grundling H, van Rensburg CJ et al. Efficacy and tolerability of 20 mg pantoprazole versus 300 mg ranitidine in patients with mild reflux-oesophagitis: a randomized, double-blind, parallel, and multicentre study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000; 12: 197202.
  • 55
    Bardhan KD, Van Rensburg C. Comparable clinical efficacy and tolerability of 20 mg pantoprazole and 20 mg omeprazole in patients with grade I reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001; 15: 158591.
  • 56
    Kaspari S, Biedermann A, Mey J. Comparison of pantoprazole 20 mg to ranitidine 150 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of mild gastroesophageal reflux disease. Digestion 2001; 63: 16370.
  • 57
    Richter JE, Kahrilas PJ, Johanson J et al. Efficacy and safety of esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in GERD patients with erosive esophagitis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 65665.
    Direct Link:
  • 58
    Castell DO, Kahrilas PJ, Richter JE et al. Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 57583.
    Direct Link:
  • 59
    Meneghelli UG, Boaventura S, Moraes-Filho JPP et al. Efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole versus ranitidine in the treatment of reflux esophagitis and the influence of Helicobacter pylori infection on healing rate. Dis Esophagus 2002; 15: 506.
  • 60
    Mulder CJJ, Westerveld BD, Smit JM et al. A double-blind, randomized comparison of omeprazole Multiple Unit Pellet System (MUPS) 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg in symptomatic reflux oesophagitis followed by 3 months of omeprazole MUPS maintenance treatment: a Dutch multicentre trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 14: 64956.
  • 61
    Körner T, Schütze K, van Leendert RJM et al. Comparable efficacy of pantoprazole and omeprazole in patients with moderate to severe reflux esophagitis. Results of a multinational study. Digestion 2003; 67: 613.
  • 62
    Scholten T, Gatz G, Hole U. Once-daily pantoprazole 40 mg and esomeprazole 40 mg have equivalent overall efficacy in relieving GERD-related symptoms. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18: 58794.
  • 63
    Gillessen A, Beil W, Modlin IM, Gatz G, Hole U. 40 mg pantoprazole and 40 mg esomeprazole are equivalent in the healing of esophageal lesions and relief from gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004; 38: 33240.
  • 64
    Wong WM, Lai KC, Hui WM et al. Double-blind, randomized controlled study to assess the effects of lansoprazole 30 mg and lansoprazole 15 mg on 24-h oesophageal and intragastric pH in Chinese subjects with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 19: 45562.
  • 65
    Fennerty MB, Johanson JF, Hwang C, Sostek M. Efficacy of esomeprazole 40 mg vs. lansoprazole 30 mg for healing moderate to severe erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21: 45563.
  • 66
    Lightdale CJ, Schmitt C, Hwang C, Hamelin B. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week comparative trial of low-dose esomeprazole (20 mg) and standard-dose omeprazole (20 mg) in patients with erosive esophagitis. Dig Dis Sci 2006; 51: 8527.
  • 67
    Bate CM, Griffin SM, Keeling PW et al. Reflux symptom relief with omeprazole in patients without unequivocal oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1996; 10: 54755.
  • 68
    Lind T, Havelund T, Carlsson R et al. Heartburn without oesophagitis: efficacy of omeprazole therapy and features determining therapeutic response. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997; 32: 9749.
  • 69
    Miner P Jr, Orr W, Filippone J, Jokubaitis L, Sloan S. Rabeprazole in nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 13329.
    Direct Link:
  • 70
    Katz PO, Castell DO, Levine D. Esomeprazole resolves chronic heartburn in patients without erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18: 87582.
  • 71
    Armstrong D, Talley NJ, Lauritsen K et al. The role of acid suppression in patients with endoscopy-negative reflux disease: the effect of treatment with esomeprazole or omeprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20: 41321.
  • 72
    Fock KM, Teo EK, Ang TL, Chua TS, Ng TM, Tan YL. Rabeprazole vs esomeprazole in non-erosive gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a randomized, double-blind study in urban Asia. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 30918.
  • 73
    Fujiwara Y, Higuchi K, Nebiki H et al. Famotidine vs. omeprazole: a prospective randomized multicentre trial to determine efficacy in non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21(Suppl 2): 108.
  • 74
    Kahrilas PJ, Miner P, Johanson J, Mao L, Jokubaitis L, Sloan S. Efficacy of rabeprazole in the treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Dis Sci 2005; 50: 200918.
  • 75
    Dent J, Kahrilas PJ, Hatlebakk J et al. A randomized, comparative trial of a potassium-competitive acid blocker (AZD0865) and esomeprazole for the treatment of patients with nonerosive reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 206.
  • 76
    Uemura N, Inokuchi H, Serizawa H et al. Efficacy and safety of omeprazole in Japanese patients with nonerosive reflux disease. J Gastroenterol 2008; 43: 6708.
  • 77
    Fass R, Chey WD, Zakko SF et al. Clinical trial: the effects of the proton pump inhibitor dexlansoprazole MR on daytime and nighttime heartburn in patients with non-erosive reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 29: 126172.
  • 78
    Watson RG, Tham TC, Johnston BT, McDougall NI. Double blind cross-over placebo controlled study of omeprazole in the treatment of patients with reflux symptoms and physiological levels of acid reflux – The “sensitive oesophagus”. Gut 1997; 40: 58790.
  • 79
    Richter JE, Peura D, Benjamin SB, Joelsson B, Whipple J. Efficacy of omeprazole for the treatment of symptomatic acid reflux disease without esophagitis. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 18106.
  • 80
    Johnsson F, Hatlebakk JG, Klintenberg AC, Román J. Symptom-relieving effect of esomeprazole 40 mg daily in patients with heartburn. Scand J Gastroenterol 2003; 38: 34753.
  • 81
    Hiyama T, Matsuo K, Urabe Y et al. Meta-analysis used to identify factors associated with the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors against non-erosive reflux disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 24: 132632.
  • 82
    Modlin IM, Hunt RH, Malfertheiner P et al. Diagnosis and management of non-erosive reflux disease – The Vevey NERD Consensus Group. Digestion 2009; 80: 7488.
  • 83
    Schlesinger PK, Donahue PE, Schmid B, Layden TJ. Limitations of 24-hour intraesophageal pH monitoring in the hospital setting. Gastroenterology 1985; 89: 797804.
  • 84
    Martinez SD, Malagon IB, Garewal HS, Cui H, Fass R. Non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) – Acid reflux and symptom patterns. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 53745.
  • 85
    Weusten BL, Roelofs JM, Akkermans LM, Van Berge-Henegouwen GP, Smout AJ. The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data. Gastroenterology 1994; 107: 17415.
  • 86
    Colas-Atger E, Bonaz B, Papillon E et al. Relationship between acid reflux episodes and gastroesophageal reflux symptoms is very inconstant. Dig Dis Sci 2002; 47: 64551.
  • 87
    Fass R, Tougas G. Functional heartburn: the stimulus, the pain, and the brain. Gut 2002; 51: 88592.
  • 88
    Dent J, Vakil N, Jones R et al. Accuracy of the diagnosis of GORD by questionnaire, physicians and a trial of proton pump inhibitor treatment: the Diamond Study. Gut 2010; 59: 71421.
  • 89
    de Leone A, Tonini M, Dominici P, Grossi E, Pace F. The proton pump inhibitor test for gastroesophageal reflux disease: optimal cut-off value and duration. Dig Liver Dis 2010; 42: 78590.
  • 90
    Pezanoski JP, Ganuratnam NT, Cowen M. Correct and incorrect dosing of proton pump inhibitors and its impact on GERD symptoms. Gastroenterology 2003; 124(Suppl 1): A228.
  • 91
    Scarpignato C, Hunt RH. Proton pump inhibitors: the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? Curr Opin Pharmacol 2008; 8: 67784.
  • 92
    Scarpignato C, Pelosini I. Review article: the opportunities and benefits of extended acid suppression. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 23(Suppl 2): 2334.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Funding
  8. Disclosure
  9. Author contribution
  10. References
  11. Supporting Information

Figure S1. Funnel plot of effect estimate. Every dot represents a study. Logit event rate was used as the effect estimate.

Table S1. Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
NMO_1888_sm_Figure1.ppt61KSupporting info item
NMO_1888_sm_Table1.doc213KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.