Clinical Trial: Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia According to Subtype Compared With Empirical Proton Pump Inhibitor

Kee Huat Chuah,Qing Yuan Loo,Wen Xuan Hian,Xin Hui Khoo,Sarala Panirsheeluam,Nurhidayah Binti Mohammad Jubri,Vicraman Natarajan,Stanley Khoo,Sanjiv Mahadeva
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.18418
IF: 9.524
2024-12-02
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Abstract:Initial treatment of functional dyspepsia according to subtype (i.e., proton pump inhibitor for epigastric pain syndrome; prokinetic for postprandial distress syndrome) was not more effective than empirical proton pump inhibitor alone, for up to 8 weeks. Both treatment strategies were similarly safe. Background International guidelines recommend contrasting initial treatment strategies for functional dyspepsia (FD). Aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment according to subtypes, compared with empirical proton pump inhibitor (PPI), in the initial treatment of FD. Methods We performed a single‐blinded, randomised controlled trial of adults with FD. In the intervention group (treatment according to subtype), patients were categorised into epigastric pain syndrome (treatment esomeprazole); postprandial distress syndrome (PDS; treatment itopride) and overlap (treatment itopride, maintain, add/or switch to esomeprazole at week 4). The control group received esomeprazole only. The primary efficacy outcome was the assessment of global symptom improvement (primary end point: best two points from the 7‐point Likert scale) over 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included assessment of the change in nine individual upper gastrointestinal symptoms, quality of life (Short‐Form Nepean Dyspepsia Index) and adverse events. Results We randomised 180 patients (median age: 50; 68.7% female 56.7% PDS) 1:1 into intervention and control arms. The percentage of patients achieving the primary efficacy outcome were 74.4% and 72.2%, respectively (p = 0.74). The improvement of individual symptoms in both groups were similar. The SF‐NDI improved after treatment in both groups (p
pharmacology & pharmacy,gastroenterology & hepatology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?