Next Article in Journal
Clinical and Functional Effects of Rehabilitation of Patients after COVID-19 Infection
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Diet and Symptom Severity in Disorder of Gut–Brain Interaction
Previous Article in Journal
Is Totally Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy a Safe and Efficacious Option for Complex Stone Disease?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Diagnosis, Clinical Presentation and Management of Celiac Disease in Children and Adolescents in Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/jcm13113262
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
Retraction published on 25 October 2024, see J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(21), 6388.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

RETRACTED: A Phase III Head-to-Head Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Fexuprazan and Esomeprazole in Treating Patients with Erosive Esophagitis

by
Yuchul Jeong
1,
Beom Jun Lee
2 and
Se-Hyeon Han
3,*
1
Department of Internal Medicine, Chungna Good Hospital, Incheon 22738, Republic of Korea
2
St. Mary’s Best ENT Clinic, Seoul 08849, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Companion Animal Industry, College of Health Science, Honam University, Gwangju 62399, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(11), 3262; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113262
Submission received: 16 March 2024 / Revised: 19 May 2024 / Accepted: 22 May 2024 / Published: 31 May 2024 / Retracted: 25 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Imaging Guidelines and Treatment Strategies for Digestive System Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Fexuprazan (Fexuclue®; Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea) is a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB). This multi-center, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, therapeutic confirmatory, phase III study was conducted to assess its efficacy and safety compared with esomeprazole (Nexium®; AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden) in Korean patients with erosive esophagitis (EE). Methods: This study evaluated patients diagnosed with EE at a total of 25 institutions in Korea between 13 December 2018 and 7 August 2019. After voluntarily submitting a written informed consent form, the patients were evaluated using a screening test and then randomized to either of the two treatment arms. The proportion of the patients who achieved the complete recovery of mucosal breaks at 4 and 8 weeks, the proportion of those who achieved the complete recovery of heartburn at 3 and 7 days and 8 weeks, and changes in the GERD–Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (GERD-HRQL) scores at 4 and 8 weeks from baseline served as efficacy outcome measures. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the serum gastrin levels served as safety outcome measures. Results: The study population comprised a total of 231 patients (n = 231) with EE, including 152 men (65.80%) and 79 women (34.20%); their mean age was 54.37 ± 12.66 years old. There were no significant differences in the efficacy and safety outcome measures between the two treatment arms (p > 0.05). Conclusions: It can be concluded that the efficacy and safety of Fexuclue® are not inferior to those of esomeprazole in Korean patients with EE.

1. Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease entity that affects people in Western countries. Recently, there has been an increased incidence of GERD; approximately 1/3 of adults present with its symptoms [1]. By contrast, its incidence in East Asian countries is much lower compared with Western ones; here, its incidence ranges between 3% and 7% in people presenting with heartburn or acid regurgitation at least weekly [2,3]. Due to rapid westernization, GERD is occurring more frequently in Korea [4].
The occurrence of GERD is closely associated with the abnormal reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus, and its specific symptoms include heartburn and acid regurgitation [5]. But patients with GERD do not belong to a homogenous group; GERD can be classified into erosive esophagitis (EE) and non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), depending on the existence of esophageal mucosal breaks on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). EE, characterized by mucosal breaks, accounts for only 1/3–1/2 of total patients with GERD [6].
The inhibition of gastric acid secretion is an effective strategy in patients with GERD, peptic ulcers, and low-dose aspirin (LDA) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcers [7,8]. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) first appeared in the late 1980s. Since then, PPIs have often been used to treat patients with acid-related diseases. Conventional types of PPIs are characterized by a benzimidazole structure, whose mode of action is based on the irreversible inhibition of hydrogen potassium (H+, K+)-ATPases [9,10]. One of the hormones of the gastrointestinal system, gastrin, is released by the G cells of the antrum of the stomach. It plays a role in stimulating gastric acid secretion [11]. The monitoring of serum gastrin levels is mandatory for GERD that is refractory to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). It is characterized by abnormal gastrin production, which is defined as serum gastrin levels > 100–150 pg/mL [12]. Therefore, if elevated, they should be checked and the relevant source should be identified [11].
To date, the use of PPIs has been a mainstream modality, although they have revealed the following disadvantages: First, the treatment effects are maximized after several days of treatment. Second, the treatment effects of PPIs depend on the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 polymorphism. Third, their treatment effects during the night are unsatisfactory. Fourth, they require an enteric coating because PPIs are unstable in the acidic environment that is needed for their activation [13,14]. Moreover, concerns have been recently raised regarding a causal relationship between the long-term use of PPIs and adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as fracture, hypomagnesaemia, interstitial nephritis, iron and vitamin B12 malabsorption and infections [15]. In particular, fracture was considered a serious ADR, such that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a letter warning that patients receiving PPIs for long periods of time are vulnerable to fractures in the distal femur, spine and distal forearm [15,16].
To overcome the above-mentioned problems of PPIs, potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) have been developed as alternative treatment modalities that can fulfill the unmet needs of patients who are not satisfied with the treatment outcomes of PPIs [17].
Since the emergence of P-CABs, considerable efforts have been made to compare the efficacy and safety between them and PPIs. But this has led to studies showing variable and conflicting results [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].
Esomeprazole (Nexium®; AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden) is a PPI whose healing effect was previously documented [26].
Fexuprazan (Fexuclue®; Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea) is a novel P-CAB [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. According to a preclinical experiment comparing between fexuprazan and vonoprazan, the former was effective in inhibiting acid secretion in a dose-dependent manner and the degree of its inhibitory effect was equivalent to or higher than that of the latter [34]. Moreover, Sunwoo et al. reported that fexuprazan was a well-tolerated drug showing rapid and long-lasting effects during the inhibition of gastric acid secretion [34].
Given the above background, this multi-center, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, therapeutic confirmatory, phase III study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of fexuprazan and esomeprazole in Korean patients with EE.

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Study Setting and Ethics Statement

This study evaluated patients diagnosed with EE at a total of 25 institutions in Korea between 13 December 2018 and 7 August 2019. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are presented in Table 1.
This study was approved by the Internal Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the respective institutions involved in it and then conducted in compliance with the relevant ethics guidelines. All the study treatments and procedures described herein were performed in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All the patients submitted a written informed consent form. The current study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03736369).

2.2. Rationale of Sample Size Estimation

According to Labenz et al. and Richter et al., the proportion of patients who achieved the complete recovery of mucosal breaks within 8 weeks in the esomeprazole 40 mg group was 95.5% and 93.7%, respectively [35,36]. Based on previously published studies showing that the lower limit (LL) of the non-inferiority margin was set at −0.1, we also used the same LL for the current study [18,37,38].
Considering an LL of a non-inferiority margin of −0.1, a one-sided level of statistical significance of 2.5%, a test power of 90% and a randomization ratio of 1:1, we estimated the sample size to be 104 per group with the use of the Power Analysis and Sample Size software (PASS) program (version 2020), as described in “Non-Inferiority Tests for the Difference Between Two Proportions”. But this study conservatively hypothesized that 20% of the total patients would be excluded from the PPS. The sample size was therefore estimated at 260 (130 per group).

2.3. Randomization and Study Treatments

The patients were randomized to either of the two treatment arms at a ratio of 1:1 using the PROC PLAN procedure in SAS Software Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) and the interactive web response system (IWRS).
From the next day of randomization, the patients were given a QD regimen of two tablets of study treatments (fexuprazan 40 mg or its matching placebo in the trial group and esomeprazole 40 mg or its matching placebo in the control group) for four weeks. The dosing rationale was based on previously published studies in this series [34,39,40]. To ensure that the double-blind design was maintained throughout the treatment period, investigational products were administered in a double dummy manner. The study schema is shown in Figure 1.
One week after the study treatments, the patients were evaluated using a telephone interview. At 4 weeks, they visited the study center and were evaluated for whether the lesion had healed on EGD. Two weeks after the healing of the lesion had been confirmed, the patients visited the study center for a safety assessment. But the patients whose healing was not confirmed were given the study treatments for another four weeks. Then, they visited the study center and were evaluated for whether the lesion had healed on EGD. Two weeks after the healing of the lesion had been confirmed, the patients were evaluated in a safety assessment using a telephone interview, and, if applicable, they received additional tests and procedures.

2.4. Patient Evaluation and Criteria

The baseline characteristics of the patients include age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking history, drinking history, LA grade, H. pylori infections and CYP2C19 extensive metabolizer (EM)/poor metabolizer (PM).
The patients were assigned to the full analysis set (FAS), comprising those receiving study treatments at least once, and the per protocol set (PPS), comprising those completing the current study without protocol violation. Then, the proportion of the patients who achieved the complete recovery of heartburn within the first 3 and 7 days and throughout the 8 weeks served as efficacy outcome measures. Moreover, changes in the GERD–Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (GERD-HRQL) scores at 4 and 8 weeks from baseline served as secondary efficacy outcome measures. The GERD-HRQOL is an 11-item self-administered questionnaire that was developed to examine symptomatic the outcomes and therapeutic effects in patients with GERD, which focuses on heartburn, dysphagia, medication effects and health conditions [41].
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the serum gastrin levels served as the safety outcome measures.

2.5. Statistical Analysis of the Patient Data

All data were expressed as mean ± SD (SD: standard deviation), mean ± SE (SE: standard error of the mean), median with the range or the number of patients with percentage, where appropriate.
For efficacy assessment, differences in the efficacy outcome measures were compared between the two treatment arms; for this, the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel (CMH) test, adjusting for the baseline LA grade, was performed, and the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CIs was calculated accordingly. At the LL of a non-inferiority margin of >−0.1, the trial group was determined to be significantly inferior to the control group. Otherwise, differences in the least squares mean (LSM) of measurements were calculated using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusting for the baseline LA grade, which served as a covariate, and then compared between the two treatment arms, for which two-sided 95% CIs were provided.
For the safety assessment, differences in the safety outcome measures were compared between the two treatment arms, for which χ2- or Fisher’s exact tests were performed. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS ver. 23 (IBM corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics of the Patients

The study population comprised a total of 231 patients (n = 231) with EE, including 152 men (65.80%) and 79 women (34.20%); their mean age was 54.37 ± 12.66 years old. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two treatment arms. The baseline characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 2.
The disposition of the study patients is shown in Figure 2.
A total of 263 patients were randomized to either of the two treatment arms, 231 of whom met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were given both study treatments and EGD more than once. These 231 patients were assigned to the FAS. Of these, 218 patients completed the current study without serious protocol violation and were assigned to the PPS. Moreover, a total of 263 patients were randomized to either of the two treatment arms, one (0.38%) of whom did not receive study treatments. Therefore, the remaining 262 patients (99.62%) received study treatments more than once and were assigned to the safety set.

3.2. Efficacy Outcomes

As shown in Table 3, there were no significant differences in the efficacy outcome measures between the two treatment arms (p > 0.05). Moreover, the CC healing rate at 4 and 8 weeks is shown in Figure 3.
At 4 weeks, the EE healing rate was 90.3% (93/103) in the fexuprazan 40 mg group and 88.5% (92/104) in the esomeprazole 40 mg group. At 8 weeks, it was 99.1% (106/107) and 99.1% (110/111) in the corresponding order. These results indicate that there was no significant difference in the EE healing rate at 4 and 8 weeks between the two treatment arms (p > 0.05).
Following a comparison of the efficacy profile between the two treatment arms, it can be inferred that the fexuprazan 40 mg group is not inferior to the esomeprazole 40 mg group.

3.3. Safety Outcomes

As shown in Table 4, there were no significant differences in the safety outcome measures between the two treatment arms (p > 0.05). Moreover, the time-dependent changes in the serum gastrin levels are shown in Figure 4.
Changes in the serum gastrin levels at 4 and 8 weeks from baseline were presented as the least square mean with 95% confidence intervals; they were measured as 21.37 pg/mL (−4.98–47.72) in the fexuprazan 40 mg group and 22.08 pg/mL (−2.68–46.83) in the esomeprazole 40 mg group. But this difference reached no statistical significance (p > 0.05).
Following a comparison of the safety profile between the two treatment arms, it can be inferred that the fexuprazan 40 mg group is not inferior to the esomeprazole 40 mg group.

4. Discussion

According to the current practical guidelines for patients with EE, PPIs are recommended as a first-line therapy and surgery is also recommended for those with resistance to PPIs [42]. Despite the extensive use of PPIs in the clinical setting, their standard dose cannot guarantee a sufficient level of gastric acid suppression because of the pharmacological limitations [43,44]. This explains the need to further explore P-CABs that are appropriate for patients with EE.
Vonoprazan (Takecab®; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., Osaka, Japan) is a novel P-CAB that was first developed and then compared to PPIs; its efficacy and safety are not inferior to those of PPIs [18,19,45,46,47]. Two novel P-CABs have also been developed in Korea. Of these, tegoprazan was also compared with a PPI; the efficacy and tolerability of the QD regimen of tegoprazan 50 or 100 mg were not inferior to those of esomeprazole 40 mg in patients with EE [20].
Patients with EE may exhibit diverse symptoms, including heartburn and acid regurgitation, that may impair the HR-QOL [48,49,50,51]. In more detail, the frequency and severity of symptoms rather than the presence of esophagitis are closely associated with a poor HR-QOL [52]. The current results showed that there were no significant differences in the GERD-HRQL scores between the two treatment arms.
In this study, the patients receiving fexuprazan 40 mg achieved the complete healing of heartburn more rapidly, with the more rapid onset of action compared with esomeprazole 40 mg. This deserves special attention because approximately 80% of patients presenting with frequent heartburn also complain of nocturnal heartburn [53,54]. Thus, nocturnal reflux with nocturnal acid breakthrough may impair sleep quality and daytime QOL. More than 30% of patients taking PPIs due to reflux esophagitis accompanied by heartburn continuously suffer from nocturnal heartburn [55]. Therefore, it remains problematic that more than 50% of patients with symptomatic EE taking PPIs are refractory to the treatment [56].
It is evident that both P-CAB and PPIs lower the gastric acid levels in the stomach by prompting the secretion of gastrin from antral G cells [57]. Indeed, according to Echizen, H, P-CAB was more effective in inhibiting the secretion of gastric acid compared with PPIs; the former caused 2- to 3-fold higher serum gastrin levels compared with the latter [58]. In more detail, Kojima Y, et al. showed that the median serum gastrin levels were significantly higher in individuals receiving P-CAB compared with those receiving PPIs after the long-term administration of both drugs (870 [range, 120–3000] vs. 440 [87–2000] pg/mL, respectively; p > 0.05) [59]. In this study, however, there were no significant differences in the serum gastrin levels between the two treatment arms.
The limitations of this study are as follows: First, this study failed to consider the possible effects of comorbidities that may affect the severity of EE, such as chronic heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [60,61]. Second, this study failed to assess the long-term safety of fexuprazan in patients with EE. As described earlier, the long-term use of PPIs had a significant correlation with ADRs [15]. Still, however, there is a paucity of data suggesting the long-term safety of P-CABs. This deserves further long-term follow-up studies. Fourth, this study enrolled a relatively smaller number of patients classified as LA grade C/D; it has been reported that those with LA grade A/B account for more than 90% of total cases [62]. Fifth, this study failed to consider lifestyle factors that may affect the symptoms of EE when comparing the GERD-HRQL scores between the two treatment arms. This deserves further studies using the Quality of Life and Utility Evaluation Survey Technology Questionnaire (QUEST), Manterola’s Scale, Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of GERD (FSSG) or Zimmerman’s Scale [63].
As a heterogeneous group of drugs, P-CABs inhibit the actions of H+, K+ ATPase in a potassium-competitive reversible manner. Their advantages include not needing to activate proton pump, the rapid onset of their action and the steady elevation of their plasma levels, leading to a decrease in acid secretion [17,28].
Based on the current results, it can be concluded that the efficacy and safety of fexuprazan are not inferior to those of esomeprazole in Korean patients with EE. Of note, however, the patients receiving fexuprazan 40 mg achieved the complete healing of heartburn more rapidly compared with the esomeprazole 40 mg group. In addition, there were no significant differences in the serum gastrin levels between the two treatment arms. But further experimental studies are warranted to clarify the potential mechanisms underlying the therapeutic benefits of fexuprazan; a previous study showed that the effects of P-CAB are linked to microinflammation, a dilated intercellular space and visceral hypersensitivity [64]. Moreover, further studies are also needed to clarify the reasons for the rapid symptomatic improvement in patients who were using fexuprazan compared with esomeprazole.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; data curation, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; formal analysis, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; funding acquisition, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; investigation, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; methodology, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; project administration, S.-H.H.; resources, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; software, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; supervision, S.-H.H.; validation, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; visualization, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; writing—original draft, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H.; writing—review and editing, Y.J., B.J.L. and S.-H.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The current study was sponsored by Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea (DWP14012).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Internal Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the respective institutions involved in it and then conducted in compliance with the relevant ethical guidelines.

Informed Consent Statement

All the patients submitted a written informed consent.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy reasons.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Laon Medi Solution Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) and KDH Medical Inc. (Gwangmyeong, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea) for providing additional support of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Clarrett, D.M.; Hachem, C. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD). Mo. Med. 2018, 115, 214–218. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Ho, K.U. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Is Uncommon in Asia: Evidence and Possible Explanations. World J. Gastroenterol. 1999, 5, 4–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lee, J.H.; Park, J.M.; Han, S.U.; Kim, J.J.; Song, K.Y.; Ryu, S.W.; Seo, K.W.; Kim, H.I.; Kim, W.; Korean Antireflux Surgery Study (KARS) Group. Antireflux Surgery in Korea: A Nationwide Study from 2011 to 2014. Gut Liver 2016, 10, 726–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Giorgi, F.D.; Palmiero, M.; Esposito, I.; Mosca, F.; Cuomo, R. Pathophysiology of Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2006, 26, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Ha, N.R.; Lee, H.L.; Lee, O.Y.; Yoon, B.C.; Choi, H.S.; Hahm, J.S.; Ahn, Y.H.; Koh, D.H. Differences in Clinical Characteristics Between Patients with Non-Erosive Reflux Disease and Erosive Esophagitis in Korea. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2010, 25, 1318–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Deppe, H.; Mücke, T.; Wagenpfeil, S.; Kesting, M.; Rozej, A.; Bajbouj, M.; Sculean, A. Erosive esophageal reflux vs. non erosive esophageal reflux: Oral findings in 71 patients. BMC Oral Health 2015, 15, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cryer, B.; Mahaffey, K.W. Gastrointestinal Ulcers, Role of Aspirin, and Clinical Outcomes: Pathobiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2014, 7, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Lanas, A.; Gargallo, C.J. Management of Low-Dose Aspirin and Clopidogrel in Clinical Practice: A Gastrointestinal Perspective. J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 50, 626–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Shin, J.M.; Sachs, G. Pharmacology of Proton Pump Inhibitors. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2008, 10, 528–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shin, J.M.; Sachs, G. Long Lasting Inhibitors of the Gastric H,K-ATPase. Expert Rev. Clin. Pharmacol. 2009, 2, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Camilleri, M. Gastrointestinal hormones and regulation of gastric emptying. Curr. Opin. Endocrinol. Diabetes Obes. 2019, 26, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Berna, M.J.; Hoffman, K.M.; Serrano, J.; Gibril, F.; Jensen, R.T. Serum gastrin in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome: I. Prospective study of fasting serum gastrin in 309 patients from the National Institutes of Health and comparison with 2229 cases from the literature. Medicine 2006, 85, 295–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Rouby, N.E.; Lima, J.J.; Johnson, J.A. Proton Pump Inhibitors: From CYP2C19 Pharmacogenetics to Precision Medicine. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2018, 14, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Horn, J. Review Article: Relationship Between the Metabolism and Efficacy of Proton Pump Inhibitors–Focus on Rabeprazole. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2004, 20 (Suppl. 6), 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Vakil, N. Prescribing proton pump inhibitors: Is it time to pause and rethink? Drugs 2012, 72, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, L.; Li, M.; Cao, Y.; Han, Z.; Wang, X.; Atkinson, E.J.; Liu, H.; Amin, S. Proton Pump Inhibitors and the Risk for Fracture at Specific Sites: Data Mining of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Rawla, P.; Sunkara, T.; Ofosu, A.; Gaduputi, V. Potassium-competitive Acid Blockers—Are They the Next Generation of Proton Pump Inhibitors? World J. Gastrointest. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 9, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ashida, K.; Sakurai, Y.; Hori, T.; Kudou, K.; Nishimura, A.; Hiramatsu, N.; Umegaki, E.; Iwakiri, K. Randomised Clinical Trial: Vonoprazan, a Novel Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker, vs. Lansoprazole for the Healing of Erosive Oesophagitis. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2016, 43, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ashida, K.; Iwakiri, K.; Hiramatsu, N.; Sakurai, Y.; Hori, T.; Kudou, K.; Nishimura, A.; Umegaki, E. Maintenance for Healed Erosive Esophagitis: Phase III Comparison of Vonoprazan with Lansoprazole. World J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 24, 1550–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, K.J.; Son, B.K.; Kim, G.H.; Jung, H.K.; Jung, H.Y.; Chung, I.K.; Sung, I.K.; Kim, J.I.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, J.S.; et al. Randomised Phase 3 Trial: Tegoprazan, a Novel Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker, vs. Esomeprazole in Patients with Erosive Oesophagitis. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 49, 864–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Iwakiri, K.; Sakurai, Y.; Shiino, M.; Okamoto, H.; Kudou, K.; Nishimura, A.; Hiramatsu, N.; Umegaki, E.; Ashida, K. A randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the acid-inhibitory effect of vonoprazan (20 mg and 40 mg) in patients with proton-pump inhibitor-resistant erosive esophagitis. Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2017, 10, 439–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shinozaki, S.; Osawa, H.; Hayashi, Y.; Sakamoto, H.; Miura, Y.; Lefor, A.K.; Yamamoto, H. Vonoprazan treatment improves gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2017, 33, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hunt, R.H.; Scarpignato, C. Potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs): Are they finally ready for prime time in acid-related disease. Clin. Transl. Gastroenterol. 2015, 6, e119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Murakami, K.; Sakurai, Y.; Shiino, M.; Funao, N.; Nishimura, A.; Asaka, M. Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, as a component of first-line and second-line triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: A phase III, randomised, double-blind study. Gut 2016, 65, 1439–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kinoshita, Y.; Sakurai, Y.; Shiino, M.; Kudou, K.; Nishimura, A.; Miyagi, T.; Iwakiri, K.; Umegaki, E.; Ashida, K. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan in patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: A phase iii, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Curr. Ther. Res. Clin. Exp. 2016; 81–82, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kahrilas, P.J.; Falk, G.W.; Johnson, D.A.; Schmitt, C.; Collins, D.W.; Whipple, J.; D’Amico, D.; Hamelin, B.; Joelsson, B. 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, 1249–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sachs, G.; Marcus, E.A.; Wen, Y.; Munson, K. Editorial: Control of Acid Secretion. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 48, 682–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Scarpignato, C.; Hunt, R.H. Editorial: Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers for Acid-Related Diseases-Tegoprazan, a New Kid on the Block. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 50, 960–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Shibli, F.; Kitayama, Y.; Fass, R. Novel Therapies for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Beyond Proton Pump Inhibitors. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2020, 22, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Hunt, R.H.; Scarpignato, C. Potent Acid Suppression with PPIs and P-CABs: What’s New? Curr. Treat. Options Gastroenterol. 2018, 16, 570–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oshima, T.; Miwa, H. Potent Potassium-competitive Acid Blockers: A New Era for the Treatment of Acid-related Diseases. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2018, 24, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. O’Connor, A.; Liou, J.M.; Gisbert, J.P.; O’Morain, C. Review: Treatment of Helicobacter Pylori Infection 2019. Helicobacter 2019, 24 (Suppl. S1), e12640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mori, H.; Suzuki, H. Role of Acid Suppression in Acid-related Diseases: Proton Pump Inhibitor and Potassium-competitive Acid Blocker. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2019, 25, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sunwoo, J.; Oh, J.; Moon, S.J.; Ji, S.C.; Lee, S.H.; Yu, K.S.; Kim, H.S.; Lee, A.; Jang, I.J. Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics of DWP14012, a Novel Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker, in Healthy Male Subjects. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 48, 206–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Labenz, J.; Armstrong, D.; Lauritsen, K.; Katelaris, P.; Schmidt, S.; Schütze, K.; Wallner, G.; Juergens, H.; Preiksaitis, H.; Keeling, N.; et al. A Randomized Comparative Study of Esomeprazole 40 Mg Versus Pantoprazole 40 Mg for Healing Erosive Oesophagitis: The EXPO Study. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2005, 21, 739–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Richter, J.E.; Kahrilas, P.J.; Johanson, J.; Maton, P.; Breiter, J.R.; Hwang, C.; Marino, V.; Hamelin, B.; Levine, J.G.; Esomeprazole Study Investigators. Efficacy and Safety of Esomeprazole Compared with Omeprazole in GERD Patients with Erosive Esophagitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2001, 96, 656–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sharma, P.; Shaheen, N.J.; Perez, M.C.; Pilmer, B.L.; Lee, M.; Atkinson, S.N.; Peura, D. Clinical Trials: Healing of Erosive Oesophagitis with Dexlansoprazole MR, a Proton Pump Inhibitor with a Novel Dual Delayed-Release Formulation–Results from Two Randomized Controlled Studies. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 29, 731–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kinoshita, Y.; Miwa, H.; Kasugai, K. Efficacy of Esomeprazole Compared With Omeprazole in Reflux Esophagitis Patients—A Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group Trial-. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi 2013, 110, 234–242. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kalaitzakis, E.; Björnsson, E. A review of esomeprazole in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2007, 3, 653–663. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jones, R.; Patrikios, T. The effectiveness of esomeprazole 40 mg in patients with persistent symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease following treatment with a full dose proton pump inhibitor. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2008, 62, 1844–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Velanovich, V.; Vallance, S.R.; Gusz, J.R.; Tapia, F.V.; Harkabus, M.A. Quality of life scale for gastroesophageal reflux disease. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 1996, 183, 217–224. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sandhu, D.S.; Fass, R. Current Trends in the Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Gut Liver 2018, 12, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Sachs, G.; Shin, J.M.; Munson, K.; Scott, D.R. Gastric Acid-Dependent Diseases: A Twentieth-Century Revolution. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2014, 59, 1358–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kung, Y.M.; Hsu, W.H.; Wu, M.C.; Wang, J.W.; Liu, C.J.; Su, Y.C.; Kuo, C.H.; Kuo, F.C.; Wu, D.C.; Wang, Y.K. Recent Advances in the Pharmacological Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2017, 62, 3298–3316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Sakurai, K.; Suda, H.; Fujie, S.; Takeichi, T.; Okuda, A.; Murao, T.; Hasuda, K.; Hirano, M.; Ito, K.; Tsuruta, K.; et al. Short-Term Symptomatic Relief in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Comparative Study of Esomeprazole and Vonoprazan. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2019, 64, 815–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Oshima, T.; Arai, E.; Taki, M.; Kondo, T.; Tomita, T.; Fukui, H.; Watari, J.; Miwa, H. Randomised Clinical Trial: Vonoprazan Versus Lansoprazole for the Initial Relief of Heartburn in Patients with Erosive Oesophagitis. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 49, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xiao, Y.; Zhang, S.; Dai, N.; Fei, G.; Goh, K.L.; Chun, H.J.; Sheu, B.S.; Chong, C.F.; Funao, N.; Zhou, W.; et al. Phase III, Randomised, Double-Blind, Multicentre Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Vonoprazan Compared with Lansoprazole in Asian Patients With Erosive Oesophagitis. Gut 2020, 69, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Wiklund, I. Review of the quality of life and burden of illness in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig. Dis. 2004, 22, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Wahlqvist, P.; Karlsson, M.; Johnson, D.; Carlsson, J.; Bolge, S.C.; Wallander, M.A. Relationship between symptom load of gastrooesophageal reflux disease and health-related quality of life, work productivity, resource utilization and concomitant diseases: Survey of a US cohort. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008, 27, 960–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, S.W.; Chang, C.M.; Chang, C.S.; Kao, A.W.; Chou, M.C. Comparison of presentation and impact on quality of life of gastroesophageal reflux disease between young and old adults in a Chinese population. World J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 17, 4614–4618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lee, S.W.; Lien, H.C.; Chang, C.S.; Peng, Y.C.; Ko, C.W.; Chou, M.C. Impact of body mass index and gender on quality of life in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. World J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 18, 5090–5095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Irvine, E.J. Quality of Life Assessment in Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease. Gut 2004, 53 (Suppl. S4), iv35–iv39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shaker, R.; Castell, D.O.; Schoenfeld, P.S.; Spechler, S.J. Nighttime heartburn is an under-appreciated clinical problem that impacts sleep and daytime function: The results of a gallup survey conducted on behalf of the american gastroenterological association. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2003, 98, 1487–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Farup, C.; Kleinman, L.; Sloan, S.; Ganoczy, D.; Chee, E.; Lee, C.; Revicki, D. The impact of nocturnal symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease on health-related quality of life. Arch. Intern. Med. 2001, 161, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kinoshita, Y.; Hongo, M. Efficacy of twice-daily rabeprazole for reflux esophagitis patients refractory to standard once-daily administration of PPI: The Japan-based TWICE study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 107, 522–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chey, W.D.; Mody, R.R.; Izat, E. Patient and physician satisfaction with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs): Are there opportunities for improvement? Dig. Dis. Sci. 2010, 55, 3415–3422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jansen, J.B.; Klinkenberg-Knol, E.C.; Meuwissen, S.G.; De Bruijne, J.W.; Festen, H.P.; Snel, P.; Lückers, A.E.; Biemond, I.; Lamers, C.B. Effect of long-term treatment with omeprazole on serum gastrin and serum group A and C pepsinogens in patients with reflux esophagitis. Gastroenterology 1990, 99, 621–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Echizen, H. The first-in-class potassium-competitive acid blocker, vonoprazan fumarate: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2016, 55, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kojima, Y.; Takeuchi, T.; Sanomura, M.; Higashino, K.; Kojima, K.; Fukumoto, K.; Takata, K.; Sakamoto, H.; Sakaguchi, M.; Tominaga, K.; et al. Does the novel potassiumcompetitive acid blocker vonoprazan cause more hypergastrinemia than conventional proton pump inhibitors? A multicenter prospective crosssectional study. Digestion 2018, 97, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Putcha, N.; Drummond, M.B.; Wise, R.A.; Hansel, N.N. Comorbidities and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Prevalence, Influence on Outcomes, and Management. Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2015, 36, 575–591. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lee, A.L.; Goldstein, R.S. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in COPD: Links and Risks. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 2015, 10, 1935–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kim, N.; Lee, S.W.; Cho, S.I.; Park, C.G.; Yang, C.H.; Kim, H.S.; Rew, J.S.; Moon, J.S.; Kim, S.; Park, S.H.; et al. The prevalence of and risk factors for erosive oesophagitis and non-erosive reflux disease: A nationwide multicentre prospective study in Korea. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008, 27, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yamamichi, N.; Mochizuki, S.; Asada-Hirayama, I.; Mikami-Matsuda, R.; Shimamoto, T.; Konno-Shimizu, M.; Takahashi, Y.; Takeuchi, C.; Niimi, K.; Ono, S.; et al. Lifestyle factors affecting gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: A cross-sectional study of healthy 19864 adults using FSSG scores. BMC Med. 2012, 10, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Huo, X.; Souza, R.F. Acid burn or cytokine sizzle in the pathogenesis of heartburn? J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013, 28, 385–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 03262 g001
Figure 1. Study schema.
Figure 1. Study schema.
Jcm 13 03262 g001
Jcm 13 03262 g002
Figure 2. Disposition of the study patients.
Figure 2. Disposition of the study patients.
Jcm 13 03262 g002
Jcm 13 03262 g003
Figure 3. Erosive esophagitis (EE) healing rate at 4 and 8 weeks.
Figure 3. Erosive esophagitis (EE) healing rate at 4 and 8 weeks.
Jcm 13 03262 g003
Jcm 13 03262 g004
Figure 4. Time-dependent changes in serum gastrin levels.
Figure 4. Time-dependent changes in serum gastrin levels.
Jcm 13 03262 g004
Table 1. Eligibility criteria.
Table 1. Eligibility criteria.
Criteria for Selecting the Patients in the Current Study.
Inclusion criteria
(1)
Men or women aged between 20 and 75 years old
(2)
Patients who had been diagnosed with EE of LA Grade C/D on EGD at the same institution within 14 days of the initiation of study treatments.
Exclusion criteria
(1)
Patients who had been diagnosed with Barrett’s esophagus (>3 cm), esophageal varices, esophageal stricture, peptic ulcer-related stenosis, active peptic ulcer, gastrointestinal bleeds and/or a malignant tumor on EGD at screening
(2)
Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (e.g., Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis), IBS, primary esophageal motility disorder and/or pancreatitis
(3)
Patients with a past history of taking gastric acid suppression therapy and/or gastroesophageal surgery, such as gastrectomy or gastric mucosal resection, other than appendectomy, cholecystectomy or endoscopic-assisted resection of the benign tumor
(4)
Patients with signs and symptoms such as odynophagia, severe dysphagia, bleeding, weight loss, anemia or hematochezia, which are suggestive of gastrointestinal malignancies
(5)
Patients with Zollinger–Ellison syndrome
(6)
Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis
(7)
Patients with clinically notable abnormalities in the liver, kidney, neurologic system, respiratory system, endocrine system, hemato-oncologic system, cardiovascular system and urologic system
(8)
Patients with a past history of malignancies within the past five years
(9)
Patients with psychiatric disorder
(10)
Patients with a past history of drug or alcohol abuse
(11)
Patients with AIDS, HBs antigen-positive or HCV antibody-positive hepatitis or those with viral carriers
(12)
Patients with hypersensitivity reactions or a past history of clinically notable hypersensitivity to drugs containing active constituents of esomeprazole or other similar drugs (e.g., benzimidazoles and antibiotics)
(13)
Patients who were given any drugs that may affect the results of the current study; these include NSAIDs, acetaminophen, anti-gastric secretion drugs (e.g., PPIs, acid pump antagonists, H2 receptor antagonists and anti-gastrin agents), cholinergic or anti-cholinergic drugs, sedatives, anti-psychiatric drugs (e.g., anti-psychotic drugs, anti-depressants, anti-manic drugs, anxiolytics and hallucinogens), corticosteroids for systemic use, anti-thrombotic agents (e.g., anti-platelet agents and anti-coagulants), prokinetics, mucosa-protective agents and antacids (e.g., aluminium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate)
(14)
Patients who were in need of any treatments using prohibited concomitant medications during the conduct of the current study
(15)
Patients with a past history of taking treatments for other trials within four weeks prior to study treatments
(16)
Patients whose serum levels of ALT, AST, ALP, γ-GT, total bilirubin, creatinine and BUN were elevated by >2 × ULN
(17)
Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding
(18)
Patients, or their partners, who did not consent to the use of appropriate contraceptive methods during the conduct of the current study
(19)
Patients who are contraindicated in EGD
(20)
Patients who are deemed ineligible for study participation according to our judgment.
Abbreviations: EE, erosive esophagitis; LA, Los-Angeles; EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; AIDS, acquired immune deficiency syndrome; HBs, hepatitis B surface; HCV, hepatitis C virus; NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; PPIs, proton pump inhibitors; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate transaminase; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; γ-GT, γ-glutamyl transpeptidase; BUN, blood urine nitrogen; ULN, upper limit of the normal.
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the patients.
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the patients.
VariablesValuesp-Value
Fexuprazan 40 mg
(n = 116)		Esomeprazole 40 mg
(n = 115)
Age (years)53.70 ± 12.4455.05 ± 12.050.3428 a
Sex
Men78 (67.24%)74 (64.35%)0.6430 b
Women38 (32.76%)41 (35.65%)
BMI (kg/m2)24.42 ± 3.0824.81 ± 3.250.5293 a
Smoking history
Non-smokers67 (57.76%)66 (57.39%)0.9782 b
Current smokers25 (21.55%)26 (22.61%)
Past smokers24 (20.69%)23 (20.00%)
Drinking history
Non-drinkers15 (12.93%)15 (13.04%)0.9916 b
Current drinkers77 (66.38%)77 (66.96%)
Past drinkers24 (20.69%)23 (20.00%)
LA grade
Grade A75 (64.66%)76 (66.09%)0.6303 b
Grade B33 (28.45%)31 (26.96%)
Grade C6 (5.17%)8 (6.96%)
Grade D2 (1.72%)0 (0.00%)
Helicobacter pylori
Positive20 (17.39%)31 (27.19%)0.0747 b
Negative95 (82.61%)83 (72.81%)
CYP2C19
EM39 (76.47%)53 (94.64%)0.0068 b
PM12 (23.53%)3 (5.36%)
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; LA, Los Angeles; CYP2C19, cytochrome P 2C19; EM, extensive metabolizer; PM, poor metabolizer. Values are mean ± standard deviation or the number of the patients with percentage, where appropriate. a Two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test. b χ2-test or Fisher’s exact test.
Table 3. Efficacy outcomes.
Table 3. Efficacy outcomes.
VariablesValuesp-Value
Fexuprazan 40 mgEsomeprazole 40 mg
Primary efficacy outcome measures
% of CR for the first 3 days30.84% (33/107) (22.09–39.59)23.42% (26/111) (15.54–31.30)0.1997 a
% of CR for the first 7 days26.17% (28/107) (17.84–34.50)21.62% (24/111) (13.96–23.28)0.3957 a
% of CR throughout 8 weeks20.56% (22/107) (12.90–28.22)17.12 (19/111) (10.11–24.12)0.4842 a
Secondary efficacy outcome measures
Changes in GERD-HRQL scores at 4 and 8 weeks from baseline−7.90 ± 8.56 (−8.34 ± 1.07) (n = 106)−9.67 ± 8.56 (−9.39 ± 1.12) (n = 111)0.1509 b
Abbreviations: CR, complete remission; GERD-HRQL, GERD–Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire. Values are percentage with 95% confidence intervals or mean ± standard deviation with least square mean ± standard error, where appropriate. a Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test. b Analysis of covariance.
Table 4. Safety outcomes.
Table 4. Safety outcomes.
VariablesValuesp-Value
Fexuprazan
40 mg
(n = 131)		Esomeprazole
40 mg
(n = 131)
Incidence of TEAEs by MedDRA SOC and PT22 (16.79%)25 (19.08%)0.629
Incidence of ADRs by MedDRA SOC and PT9 (6.87%)7 (5.34%)0.606
Changes in serum gastrin levels at 4 and 8 weeks from baseline (pg/mL)21.37 (−4.98–47.72)22.08 (−2.68–46.83)0.724
Abbreviations: TEAEs, treatment-emergent adverse events; MedDRA, Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities; SOC, System Organ Class; PT, Preferred Terms; ADRs, adverse drug reactions. Values are the number of the patients with percentage or least square mean with 95% confidence intervals, where appropriate.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jeong, Y.; Lee, B.J.; Han, S.-H. RETRACTED: A Phase III Head-to-Head Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Fexuprazan and Esomeprazole in Treating Patients with Erosive Esophagitis. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 3262. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113262

AMA Style

Jeong Y, Lee BJ, Han S-H. RETRACTED: A Phase III Head-to-Head Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Fexuprazan and Esomeprazole in Treating Patients with Erosive Esophagitis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(11):3262. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113262

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jeong, Yuchul, Beom Jun Lee, and Se-Hyeon Han. 2024. "RETRACTED: A Phase III Head-to-Head Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Fexuprazan and Esomeprazole in Treating Patients with Erosive Esophagitis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 11: 3262. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113262

APA Style

Jeong, Y., Lee, B. J., & Han, S. -H. (2024). RETRACTED: A Phase III Head-to-Head Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Fexuprazan and Esomeprazole in Treating Patients with Erosive Esophagitis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(11), 3262. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113262

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop