title: Reflux esophagitis therapy: sucralfate versus ranitidine in a double blind multicenter trial.
abstract: Sucralfate (Sc) suspension 6 g/day and ranitidine (Rn) tablets, 150 mg, were compared in 125 patients in a double-blind, multicenter, endoscopically controlled trial in the treatment of reflux esophagitis. Inclusion criteria were symptomatic reflux (number and severity of attacks) and endoscopic evidence of esophagitis (grades 1 to 4). Clinical assessments were performed on entry, and at 4 and at 8 weeks, and endoscopy was repeated at 8 weeks. Sc suspension and Rn placebo or Sc placebo and Rn tablets were taken on waking and immediately before retiring at night. Of the 125 patients, 27 were withdrawn because of default (Rn = 4; Sc = 14), noncompliance (Rn = 1; Sc = 2), or the development of congestive cardiac failure (Rn = 1), diarrhea (Rn = 1; Sc = 1), nausea (Sc = 1), constipation (Sc = 1), and hematemesis (Sc = 1). Analysis was performed on the remaining 98 patients, 43 of whom had been treated with Sc and 55 with Rn. Heartburn, acid regurgitation, epigastric pain, dysphagia, and chest pain were relieved in 34% vs 40%, 67% vs 72%, 71% vs 57%, and 86% vs 63% for Sc and Rn, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups. Endoscopic healing occurred in 47% of the Sc- and in 31% of the Rn-treated patients (chi 2 = 2.50), and healing or improvement was noted in 81% of the Sc- and 64% of the Rn-treated patients. This difference approached statistical significance (chi 2 = 3.73). There was no obvious endoscopic benefit in 8 of the 43 and 20 of the 55 patients in the groups treated with Sc and Rn, respectively. Although the findings with sucralfate and ranitidine in patients with reflux esophagitis completing the trial suggest a benefit of these agents, the absence of a placebo control group and the high default rates, particularly for those receiving sucralfate, preclude any firm conclusions as to relative or specific efficacy of these agents in this condition.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Medical School, University of Witwatersand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
authors.forename: C G
authors.initials: CG
authors.lastname: Bremner
authors.forename: I N
authors.initials: IN
authors.lastname: Marks
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Segal
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Simjee
mesh_terms: D000284:Administration, Oral; D000328:Adult; D000428:Alcohol Drinking / Q000009:adverse effects; D000894:Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal / Q000009:adverse effects; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D016099:Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; D004942:Esophagitis, Peptic / Q000145:classification / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000188:drug therapy*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011899:Ranitidine / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D012907:Smoking / Q000009:adverse effects; D013256:Steroids / Q000009:adverse effects; D013392:Sucralfate / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000187:drug effects
chemical_list: D000894:Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; D013256:Steroids; D013392:Sucralfate; D011899:Ranitidine