DESIGN: In this phase III, double-blind, multicentre study, patients with endoscopically confirmed EO were randomised 1:1 to receive vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg, once daily for up to 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was EO healing rate at 8 weeks. The secondary endpoints were EO healing rates at 2 and 4 weeks. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: In the vonoprazan (n=238) and lansoprazole (n=230) arms, 8-week EO healing rates were 92.4% and 91.3%, respectively (difference 1.1% (95% CI -3.822% to 6.087%)). The respective 2-week EO healing rates were 75.0% and 67.8% (difference 7.2% (95% CI -1.054% to 15.371%)), and the respective 4-week EO healing rates were 85.3% and 83.5% (difference 1.8% (95% CI -4.763% to 8.395%)). In patients with baseline Los Angeles classification grade C/D, 2-week, 4-week and 8-week EO healing rates were higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole (2 weeks: 62.2% vs 51.5%, difference 10.6% (95% CI -5.708% to 27.002%); 4 weeks: 73.3% vs 67.2%, difference 6.2% (95% CI -8.884 to 21.223); and 8 weeks: 84.0% vs 80.6%, difference 3.4% (95% CI -9.187% to 15.993%)). Overall, EO healing rates appeared higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole. TEAE rates were 38.1% and 36.6% in the vonoprazan and lansoprazole group, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the non-inferior efficacy of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole in terms of EO healing rate at 8 weeks in this population. Safety outcomes were similar in the two treatment arms.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02388724.
METHODS: A steering committee identified three areas to address: (1) burden of disease and diagnosis of reflux disease; (2) proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease; (3) Barrett's oesophagus. Three working groups formulated draft statements with supporting evidence. Discussions were done via email before a final face-to-face discussion. We used a Delphi consensus process, with a 70% agreement threshold, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to categorise the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
RESULTS: A total of 32 statements were proposed and 31 were accepted by consensus. A rise in the prevalence rates of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Asia was noted, with the majority being non-erosive reflux disease. Overweight and obesity contributed to the rise. Proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease was recognised to be common. A distinction was made between refractory symptoms and refractory reflux disease, with clarification of the roles of endoscopy and functional testing summarised in two algorithms. The definition of Barrett's oesophagus was revised such that a minimum length of 1 cm was required and the presence of intestinal metaplasia no longer necessary. We recommended the use of standardised endoscopic reporting and advocated endoscopic therapy for confirmed dysplasia and early cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines standardise the management of patients with refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's oesophagus in the Asia-Pacific region.
METHODS: 28 experts from 11 countries reviewed the evidence and modified the statements using the Delphi method, with consensus level predefined as ≥80% of agreement on each statement. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was followed.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached in 26 statements. At an individual level, eradication of H. pylori reduces the risk of GC in asymptomatic subjects and is recommended unless there are competing considerations. In cohorts of vulnerable subjects (eg, first-degree relatives of patients with GC), a screen-and-treat strategy is also beneficial. H. pylori eradication in patients with early GC after curative endoscopic resection reduces the risk of metachronous cancer and calls for a re-examination on the hypothesis of 'the point of no return'. At the general population level, the strategy of screen-and-treat for H. pylori infection is most cost-effective in young adults in regions with a high incidence of GC and is recommended preferably before the development of atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. However, such a strategy may still be effective in people aged over 50, and may be integrated or included into national healthcare priorities, such as colorectal cancer screening programmes, to optimise the resources. Reliable locally effective regimens based on the principles of antibiotic stewardship are recommended. Subjects at higher risk of GC, such as those with advanced gastric atrophy or intestinal metaplasia, should receive surveillance endoscopy after eradication of H. pylori.
CONCLUSION: Evidence supports the proposal that eradication therapy should be offered to all individuals infected with H. pylori. Vulnerable subjects should be tested, and treated if the test is positive. Mass screening and eradication of H. pylori should be considered in populations at higher risk of GC.