4.5 Article

Prevention of peptic ulcers with esomeprazole in patients at risk of ulcer development treated with low-dose acetylsalicylic acid: a randomised, controlled trial (OBERON)

期刊

HEART
卷 97, 期 10, 页码 797-802

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2010.217547

关键词

-

资金

  1. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine whether once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg or 20 mg compared with placebo reduces the incidence of peptic ulcers over 26 weeks of treatment in patients taking low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and who are at risk for ulcer development. Design Multinational, randomised, blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Setting Cardiology, primary care and gastroenterology centres (n=240). Patients Helicobacter pylori-negative patients taking daily low-dose ASA (75-325 mg), who fulfilled one or more of the following criteria: age >= 18 years with history of uncomplicated peptic ulcer; age >= 60 years with either stable coronary artery disease, upper gastrointestinal symptoms and five or more gastric/duodenal erosions, or low-dose ASA treatment initiated within 1 month of randomisation; or age >= 65 years. All patients were ulcer-free at study entry. Interventions Once-daily, blinded treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg, 20 mg or placebo for 26 weeks. Main outcome measures The primary end point was the occurrence of endoscopy-confirmed peptic ulcer over 26 weeks. Results A total of 2426 patients (52% men; mean age 68 years) were randomised. After 26 weeks, esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg significantly reduced the cumulative proportion of patients developing peptic ulcers; 1.5% of esomeprazole 40 mg and 1.1% of esomeprazole 20 mg recipients, compared with 7.4% of placebo recipients, developed peptic ulcers (both p<0.0001 vs placebo). Esomeprazole was generally well tolerated. Conclusions Acid-suppressive treatment with once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg or 20 mg reduces the occurrence of peptic ulcers in patients at risk for ulcer development who are taking low-dose ASA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据