File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Famotidine Is Inferior to Pantoprazole in Preventing Recurrence of Aspirin-Related Peptic Ulcers or Erosions
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleFamotidine Is Inferior to Pantoprazole in Preventing Recurrence of Aspirin-Related Peptic Ulcers or Erosions
 
AuthorsNg, F2
Wong, S1
Lam, K1
Chu, W2
Chan, P1
Ling, Y2
Kng, C2
Yuen, W2
Lau, Y2
Kwan, A2
Wong, BCY1
 
Issue Date2010
 
PublisherWB Saunders Co. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gastro
 
CitationGastroenterology, 2010, v. 138 n. 1, p. 82-88 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2009.09.063
 
AbstractBackground & Aims: Little is known about the efficacy of H 2-receptor antagonists in preventing recurrence of aspirin-related peptic ulcers. We compared the efficacy of high-dose famotidine with that of pantoprazole in preventing recurrent symptomatic ulcers/erosions. Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 160 patients with aspirin-related peptic ulcers/erosions, with or without a history of bleeding. Patients were given either famotidine (40 mg, morning and evening) or pantoprazole (20 mg in the morning and placebo in the evening). All patients continued to receive aspirin (80 mg daily). The primary end point was recurrent dyspeptic or bleeding ulcers/erosions within 48 weeks. Results: A total of 130 patients (81.1%) completed the study; 13 of 65 patients in the famotidine group reached the primary end point (20.0%; 95% one-sided confidence interval [CI] for the risk difference, 0.1184-1.0) compared with 0 of 65 patients in the pantoprazole group (P < .0001, 95% one-sided CI for the risk difference, 0.1184-1.0). Gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly more common in the famotidine group than the pantoprazole group (7.7% [5/65] vs 0% [0/65]; 95% one-sided CI for the risk difference, 0.0226-1.0; P = .0289), as was recurrent dyspepsia caused by ulcers/erosions (12.3% [8/65] vs 0% [0/65]; 95% one-sided CI for the risk difference, 0.0560-1.0; P = .0031). No patients had ulcer perforation or obstruction. Conclusions: In patients with aspirin-related peptic ulcers/erosions, high-dose famotidine therapy is inferior to pantoprazole in preventing recurrent dyspeptic or bleeding ulcers/erosions. © 2010 AGA Institute.
 
ISSN0016-5085
2013 Impact Factor: 13.926
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2009.09.063
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorNg, F
 
dc.contributor.authorWong, S
 
dc.contributor.authorLam, K
 
dc.contributor.authorChu, W
 
dc.contributor.authorChan, P
 
dc.contributor.authorLing, Y
 
dc.contributor.authorKng, C
 
dc.contributor.authorYuen, W
 
dc.contributor.authorLau, Y
 
dc.contributor.authorKwan, A
 
dc.contributor.authorWong, BCY
 
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-05T05:29:38Z
 
dc.date.available2012-09-05T05:29:38Z
 
dc.date.issued2010
 
dc.description.abstractBackground & Aims: Little is known about the efficacy of H 2-receptor antagonists in preventing recurrence of aspirin-related peptic ulcers. We compared the efficacy of high-dose famotidine with that of pantoprazole in preventing recurrent symptomatic ulcers/erosions. Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 160 patients with aspirin-related peptic ulcers/erosions, with or without a history of bleeding. Patients were given either famotidine (40 mg, morning and evening) or pantoprazole (20 mg in the morning and placebo in the evening). All patients continued to receive aspirin (80 mg daily). The primary end point was recurrent dyspeptic or bleeding ulcers/erosions within 48 weeks. Results: A total of 130 patients (81.1%) completed the study; 13 of 65 patients in the famotidine group reached the primary end point (20.0%; 95% one-sided confidence interval [CI] for the risk difference, 0.1184-1.0) compared with 0 of 65 patients in the pantoprazole group (P < .0001, 95% one-sided CI for the risk difference, 0.1184-1.0). Gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly more common in the famotidine group than the pantoprazole group (7.7% [5/65] vs 0% [0/65]; 95% one-sided CI for the risk difference, 0.0226-1.0; P = .0289), as was recurrent dyspepsia caused by ulcers/erosions (12.3% [8/65] vs 0% [0/65]; 95% one-sided CI for the risk difference, 0.0560-1.0; P = .0031). No patients had ulcer perforation or obstruction. Conclusions: In patients with aspirin-related peptic ulcers/erosions, high-dose famotidine therapy is inferior to pantoprazole in preventing recurrent dyspeptic or bleeding ulcers/erosions. © 2010 AGA Institute.
 
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationGastroenterology, 2010, v. 138 n. 1, p. 82-88 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2009.09.063
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2009.09.063
 
dc.identifier.epage88
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.f10001797972
 
dc.identifier.issn0016-5085
2013 Impact Factor: 13.926
 
dc.identifier.issue1
 
dc.identifier.pmid19837071
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-72249102783
 
dc.identifier.spage82
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/163286
 
dc.identifier.volume138
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherWB Saunders Co. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gastro
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofGastroenterology
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.subject.mesh2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles - Administration & Dosage
 
dc.subject.meshAged
 
dc.subject.meshAnti-Bacterial Agents - Therapeutic Use
 
dc.subject.meshAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal - Adverse Effects
 
dc.subject.meshAnti-Ulcer Agents - Administration & Dosage
 
dc.subject.meshAspirin - Adverse Effects
 
dc.subject.meshFamotidine - Administration & Dosage
 
dc.subject.meshFemale
 
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studies
 
dc.subject.meshGastrointestinal Hemorrhage - Chemically Induced - Epidemiology - Prevention & Control
 
dc.subject.meshHelicobacter Infections - Drug Therapy - Epidemiology
 
dc.subject.meshHistamine H2 Antagonists - Administration & Dosage
 
dc.subject.meshHumans
 
dc.subject.meshMale
 
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged
 
dc.subject.meshPeptic Ulcer - Chemically Induced - Epidemiology - Prevention & Control
 
dc.subject.meshRecurrence - Prevention & Control
 
dc.subject.meshRisk Factors
 
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcome
 
dc.titleFamotidine Is Inferior to Pantoprazole in Preventing Recurrence of Aspirin-Related Peptic Ulcers or Erosions
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Ng, F</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Wong, S</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lam, K</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Chu, W</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Chan, P</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Ling, Y</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Kng, C</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Yuen, W</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lau, Y</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Kwan, A</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Wong, BCY</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2012-09-05T05:29:38Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2012-09-05T05:29:38Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2010</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Gastroenterology, 2010, v. 138 n. 1, p. 82-88</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0016-5085</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/163286</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>Background &amp; Aims: Little is known about the efficacy of H 2-receptor antagonists in preventing recurrence of aspirin-related peptic ulcers. We compared the efficacy of high-dose famotidine with that of pantoprazole in preventing recurrent symptomatic ulcers/erosions. Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 160 patients with aspirin-related peptic ulcers/erosions, with or without a history of bleeding. Patients were given either famotidine (40 mg, morning and evening) or pantoprazole (20 mg in the morning and placebo in the evening). All patients continued to receive aspirin (80 mg daily). The primary end point was recurrent dyspeptic or bleeding ulcers/erosions within 48 weeks. Results: A total of 130 patients (81.1%) completed the study; 13 of 65 patients in the famotidine group reached the primary end point (20.0%; 95% one-sided confidence interval [CI] for the risk difference, 0.1184-1.0) compared with 0 of 65 patients in the pantoprazole group (P &lt; .0001, 95% one-sided CI for the risk difference, 0.1184-1.0). Gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly more common in the famotidine group than the pantoprazole group (7.7% [5/65] vs 0% [0/65]; 95% one-sided CI for the risk difference, 0.0226-1.0; P = .0289), as was recurrent dyspepsia caused by ulcers/erosions (12.3% [8/65] vs 0% [0/65]; 95% one-sided CI for the risk difference, 0.0560-1.0; P = .0031). No patients had ulcer perforation or obstruction. Conclusions: In patients with aspirin-related peptic ulcers/erosions, high-dose famotidine therapy is inferior to pantoprazole in preventing recurrent dyspeptic or bleeding ulcers/erosions. &#169; 2010 AGA Institute.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>WB Saunders Co. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gastro</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Gastroenterology</relation.ispartof>
<subject.mesh>2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles - Administration &amp; Dosage</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Aged</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Anti-Bacterial Agents - Therapeutic Use</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal - Adverse Effects</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Anti-Ulcer Agents - Administration &amp; Dosage</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Aspirin - Adverse Effects</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Famotidine - Administration &amp; Dosage</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Female</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Follow-Up Studies</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - Chemically Induced - Epidemiology - Prevention &amp; Control</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Helicobacter Infections - Drug Therapy - Epidemiology</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Histamine H2 Antagonists - Administration &amp; Dosage</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Humans</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Male</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Middle Aged</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Peptic Ulcer - Chemically Induced - Epidemiology - Prevention &amp; Control</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Recurrence - Prevention &amp; Control</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Risk Factors</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Treatment Outcome</subject.mesh>
<title>Famotidine Is Inferior to Pantoprazole in Preventing Recurrence of Aspirin-Related Peptic Ulcers or Erosions</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1053/j.gastro.2009.09.063</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>19837071</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-72249102783</identifier.scopus>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-72249102783&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>138</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>1</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>82</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>88</identifier.epage>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
<identifier.f1000>1797972</identifier.f1000>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. The University of Hong Kong
  2. Ruttonjee Hospital Hong Kong