Copyright
©2006 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 7, 2006; 12(37): 6017-6020
Published online Oct 7, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i37.6017
Published online Oct 7, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i37.6017
Table 2 Efficacy in the reference (racemic pantoprazole 40 mg, n = 182) and test (S-pantoprazole 20 mg, n = 187) groups
Symptoms | d 0 | d 14 | d 28 | P3 | ||||
Ref | Test | Ref | Test | Ref | Test | |||
Heart burn | Mean ± SD | 1.8 ± 0.8 | 1.9 ± 0.8 | 1.2 ± 0.8 | 1.2 ± 0.9 | 0.6 ± 0.9 | 0.6 ± 0.8 | < 0.0001 |
Median (Percentile 25th, 75th) | 2 (1.2) | 2 (1.3) | 1 (1.2)2 | 1 (0.5.2)1 | 0 (0.1)2 | 0 (0.1)1 | ||
Regurgitation | Mean ± SD | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 1.7 ± 0.9 | 1.1 ± 0.8 | 1 ± 0.8 | 0.5 ± 0.8 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | < 0.0001 |
Median (Percentile 25th, 75th) | 2 (1.2) | 2 (1.2) | 1 (0.2)2 | 1 (0.2)1 | 0 (0.1)2 | 0 (0.1)1 | ||
Bloating | Mean ± SD | 1.4 ± 0.9 | 1.4 ± 1 | 0.9 ± 0.9 | 0.8 ± 0.8 | 0.5 ± 0.8 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | < 0.0001 |
Median (Percentile 25th, 75th) | 1 (1.2) | 2 (1.2) | 1 (0.2)2 | 1 (1.2)1 | 0 (0.1)2 | 1 (1.1)1 | ||
Nausea | Mean ± SD | 1.4 ± 1 | 1.3 ± 1 | 0.8 ± 0.9 | 0.7 ± 0.8 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | < 0.0001 |
Median (Percentile 25th, 75th) | 2 (0.2) | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.2)2 | 0 (0.1)1 | 0 (0.0.25)2 | 0 (0.1)1 | ||
Dysphagia | Mean ± SD | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 0.5 ± 0.8 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | < 0.001 |
Median (Percentile 25th, 75th) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0)1 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0)1 |
- Citation: Pai VG, Pai NV, Thacker HP, Shinde JK, Mandora VP, Erram SS. Comparative clinical trial of S-pantoprazole versus racemic pantoprazole in the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12(37): 6017-6020
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v12/i37/6017.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v12.i37.6017