The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of weekly administration of paclitaxel (PTX) for 37 patients with advanced or recurrent breast cancer. PTX was administered at a dose of 60 mg/m(2), 6 times every 8 weeks. The mean number of treatment cycles was 2.1, and the mean number of administrations was 12.7. Response rate was 35.1%. Two patients achieved CR, 11 PR, 13 NC (3 patients of long NC), 9 PD, and 2 NE. The clinical benefit rate (CR+PR+NC) was 70.3%. Median survival time was 733 days, and median time to treatment failure was 151 days. Grade 3 or more leucopenia and neutropenia occurred in 3 of patients (8.1%), and no patients showed hypersensitivity reaction after administration of PTX. Weekly PTX (60 mg/m(2)) is one of the treatment options in advanced or recurrent breast cancer from the standpoint of palliation.

BACKGROUND. Persistent infection with Helicobacter pylori is associated with the recurrence of duodenal ulcer. Whether the efficacy of bismuth therapy in reducing the rate of recurrence of duodenal ulcer is due to its antimicrobial effects on H. pylori or to a direct protective action on the mucosa is still a matter of debate. METHODS. To study the effect of the eradication of H. pylori on the recurrence of duodenal ulcer, we treated 104 patients with H. pylori infection and recurrent duodenal ulcer with either amoxicillin (750 mg three times daily) plus metronidazole (500 mg three times daily) or identical-appearing placebos, given orally for 12 days. All patients also received ranitidine (300 mg each night) for 6 or 10 weeks. Endoscopy was performed before treatment and periodically during follow-up for up to 12 months after healing. RESULTS. Among the 52 patients given antibiotics, H. pylori was eradicated in 46, as compared with 1 of the 52 given placebo (89 percent vs. 2 percent, P < 0.001). After six weeks, the ulcers were healed in 48 patients given antibiotics and 39 given placebo (92 percent vs. 75 percent, P = 0.011). Side effects, mainly diarrhea, occurred in 15 percent of the patients given antibiotics. Among the patients followed up for 12 months, duodenal ulcers recurred in 4 of 50 patients given antibiotics and 42 of 49 given placebo (8 percent vs. 86 percent, P < 0.001). Ulcers recurred in 1 of 46 patients in whom H. pylori had been eradicated, as compared with 45 of 53 in whom H. pylori persisted (2 percent vs. 85 percent, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS. In patients with recurrent duodenal ulcer, eradication of H. pylori by a regimen that does not have any direct action on the mucosa is followed by a marked reduction in the rate of recurrence, suggesting a causal role for H. pylori in recurrent duodenal ulcer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prophylactic effect of ranitidine 150 mg twice daily in patients requiring one of the following non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: naproxen, piroxicam, diclofenac, and indomethacin. In addition, risk factors were studied in order to help in targeting of such treatment to specific groups of patients. DESIGN: Double blind, placebo controlled, randomised, parallel group with endoscopic assessments at 0, 4, and 8 weeks. SETTING: Multicentre outpatient study at secondary referral centres in five European countries. PATIENTS--297 patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis over the age of 18 without lesions in the stomach and duodenum at baseline endoscopy (after one week without taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Those taking other antirheumatic agents, concomitant ulcerogenic drugs, or treatment for peptic ulcers within the previous 30 days were excluded. Age, sex, arthritic disease, and type of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug used were comparable in the two treatment groups. In all, 263 patients completed the trial. INTERVENTIONS: Ranitidine 150 mg twice daily or placebo (plus the selected non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) was prescribed within five days after the baseline endoscopy for two consecutive periods of four weeks. Paracetamol was permitted during the study, but not antacids. Patients were withdrawn if the most severe grade of damage (including ulceration) was found at the four week endoscopy or when indicated, or with lesser damage at the investigator's discretion. END POINT: Frequency of gastric and duodenal ulceration or lesions, or both. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of peptic ulceration by eight weeks was 10.3%(27/263); 2 out of 135 (1.5%) developed duodenal ulceration in the ranitidine group, compared with 10 out of 126 (8%) taking placebo. The frequency of gastric ulceration was the same (6%) for the two groups at eight weeks. Though significantly fewer gastric lesions developed in the ranitidine group by eight weeks. The frequency of non-ulcerative lesions in the duodenum did not differ greatly for the two groups at either time point. Twelve out of 75 (16%) patients taking piroxicam developed peptic ulceration, of whom two thirds had duodenal ulceration. Patients with a history of peptic ulcer were particularly susceptible to recurrent ulceration, against which ranitidine offered some protection. CONCLUSIONS: Ranitidine 150 mg twice daily significantly reduced the incidence of duodenal ulceration but not gastric ulceration when prescribed concomitantly with one of four commonly used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Omeprazole blocks the action of H+,K+-ATPase in the gastric mucosa and thus inhibits the secretion of hydrochloric acid. We conducted a double-blind multicenter study (45 centers in 13 countries) of 602 patients with benign gastric or prepyloric ulcers to compare the effectiveness of omeprazole (20 mg once daily, 203 patients, or 40 mg once daily, 194 patients) and ranitidine, an H2-receptor antagonist (150 mg twice daily, 205 patients) in promoting ulcer healing and to evaluate the pattern of ulcer relapse during a six-month follow-up. Healing occurred at four weeks in 80 percent of the patients receiving 40 mg of omeprazole, 69 percent of those receiving 20 mg of omeprazole, 69 percent of those receiving ranitidine. At eight weeks, the corresponding figures were 96, 89, and 85 percent. A multivariate analysis of ulcer healing showed that at four weeks the ulcers of significantly more patients receiving omeprazole had healed as compared with patients receiving ranitidine (omeprazole, 40 mg, vs. ranitidine, P less than 0.0005; omeprazole, 20 mg, vs. ranitidine, P = 0.01). At eight weeks, the 40-mg dose of omeprazole was significantly more effective than ranitidine (P = 0.001) or the 20-mg dose of omeprazole (P = 0.03). Ulcer symptoms were relieved faster with omeprazole. In 68 patients receiving concurrent nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, the healing rates at four weeks were 81 percent in the group receiving 40 mg of omeprazole, 61 percent in the group receiving 20 mg, and 32 percent in the group receiving ranitidine; at eight weeks, the corresponding figures were 95, 82, and 53 percent. During the six-month follow-up period (without treatment), significantly more patients in the omeprazole groups were free of symptoms and ulcers than in the ranitidine group. We conclude that in the dose used, omeprazole is superior to ranitidine in the treatment of benign gastric ulcers.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Patients with reflux esophagitis have rapid relapses after treatment withdrawal. This study was designed to investigate the relapse rate of symptomatic esophagitis during maintenance treatment with omeprazole or ranitidine. METHODS: Patients with endoscopically verified acute erosive or ulcerative esophagitis were initially treated with 20-40 mg omeprazole daily for 8-12 weeks. After healing, the patients were randomized to maintenance treatment with omeprazole (20 or 10 mg each morning) or ranitidine (150 mg twice daily). Control endoscopy was performed at the end of the healing phase and after 12 months of maintenance treatment or symptomatic relapse. RESULTS: Of 426 initially treated patients, 392 were healed and entered the maintenance study. The months of maintenance treatment with 20 mg omeprazole once daily (n = 131), 10 mg omeprazole once daily (n = 133), and 150 mg ranitidine twice daily (n = 128) were 72%, 62%, and 45%, respectively. Both the 10- and 20-mg doses of omeprazole were significantly better than the dose of ranitidine (P < 0.001 and P < 0.005, respectively). There was no significant difference between the 10- and 20-mg doses of omeprazole (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance treatment with omeprazole (20 or 10 mg once daily) is superior to ranitidine (150 mg twice daily) in keeping patients with erosive reflux esophagitis in remission over a 12-month period.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adding histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is a common practice to block nocturnal acid breakthrough (NAB). Controversy exists over its efficacy because of H2RA intolerance. No prospective study has addressed this issue. METHODS: Twenty-three healthy volunteers and 20 gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients were studied. Ambulatory pH monitoring was performed with one electrode in the gastric fundus and the other 5 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter. Baseline pH testing was performed and repeated after 2 weeks on PPI twice daily before meals (omeprazole 20 mg). All subjects then received 28 days of PPI plus H2RA Qhs (ranitidine 300 mg) with repeat pH testing on days 1, 7, and 28. RESULTS: Eighteen controls and 16 GERD patients completed all 5 studies. Compared with baseline, all 4 medication regimens decreased supine % time pH < 4 (P = 0.001). The administration of PPI + 1 day of H2RA was the only therapy that significantly decreased % time gastric pH < 4 for the supine period compared with PPI twice daily alone (P < 0.001). There was no difference in % time supine gastric pH < 4 between 2 weeks of PPI twice daily alone and either 1 week or 1 month of PPI + bedtime H2RA. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of H2RA and PPI therapy reduced NAB only with the introduction of therapy. Because of H2RA tolerance, there is no difference in acid suppression between PPI twice daily and PPI twice daily + H2RA after 1 week of combination therapy.

To determine whether surgery could be avoided in some patients with perforated peptic ulcer, we conducted a prospective randomized trial comparing the outcome of nonoperative treatment with that of emergency surgery in patients with a clinical diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer. Of the 83 patients entered in the study over a 13-month period, 40 were randomly assigned to conservative treatment, which consisted of resuscitation with intravenous fluids, institution of nasogastric suction, and intravenous administration of antibiotics (cefuroxime, ampicillin, and metronidazole) and ranitidine. Eleven of these patients (28 percent) had no clinical improvement after 12 hours and required an operation. Two of the 11 had a perforated gastric carcinoma, and 1 had a perforated sigmoid carcinoma. The other 43 patients were assigned to immediate laparotomy and repair of the perforation. One of these patients was found to have a perforated gastric carcinoma. The overall mortality rates in the two groups were similar (two deaths in each, 5 percent), and did not differ significantly in the morbidity (infection, cardiac failure, or renal failure) rates (40 percent in the surgical group and 50 percent in the nonsurgical group). The hospital stay was 35 percent longer in the group treated conservatively. Patients over 70 years old were less likely to respond to conservative treatment than younger patients (P less than 0.05). We conclude that in patients with perforated peptic ulcer, an initial period of nonoperative treatment with careful observation may be safely allowed except in patients over 70 years old, and that the use of such an observation period can obviate the need for emergency surgery in more than 70 percent of patients.

We prospectively evaluated gastric acid output (mEq/h), gastric volume output (ml/h), ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring, and the endoscopic appearance of the esophagus in 23 patients undergoing treatment of chronic long-standing pyrosis. Twelve of these 23 individuals (52%) remained symptomatic after 3 mo of standard antisecretory treatment with ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily. When compared with initial responders, those patients who did not experience complete symptomatic relief on therapy had significantly higher basal acid output (p less than 0.001), basal volume output (p less than 0.02), and basal upright (but not supine) reflux time (p less than 0.05). Nine of the 12 patients who did not respond to initial treatment had gastric acid hypersecretion (basal acid output greater than 10 mEq/h), and 10 of the 12 had Barrett's epithelium compared with only 1 patient in the initial-responder group (p less than 0.001). All 12 nonresponders were treated for an additional 3 mo with increased doses of ranitidine (mean, 1280 mg/day; range, 600-1800 mg/day), and complete disappearance of pyrosis occurred in 10 of the 12, although no significant endoscopic regression was observed in the extent of the underlying columnar mucosa in those with Barrett's esophagus over the 6-mo duration of the study. A significant correlation was shown between the daily ranitidine dose required to eliminate symptoms and the pretreatment basal acid output (r = 0.81, p less than 0.001); gastric acid output had to be almost totally suppressed (i.e., less than 1 mEq/h) for pyrosis to disappear completely. No side effects occurred with any of these high doses of ranitidine. We conclude that a subgroup of patients with long-standing symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease who do not respond to standard ulcer-healing doses of histamine2-receptor antagonists are hypersecretors of basal gastric acid and require increased acid-suppressive therapy. Many of these individuals also have underlying Barrett's epithelium.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Prolonged infusions of H2-antagonists are commonly used in intensive care units, although little is known about their antisecretory efficacy beyond the initial 24 hours of dosing. The aim of this study was to assess the antisecretory effects of infusions of ranitidine and omeprazole for a period of 72 hours. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received individually titrated 72-hour intravenous infusions of omeprazole, ranitidine, or placebo in a double-blind, crossover study. Gastric pH and dosing requirements were compared. RESULTS: The median percentage of time with pH > 4 (interquartile range) was 93%(88%-95%) on day 1 and 96%(94%-99%) on day 3 with omeprazole and 67%(56%-78%) and 43%(31%-51%), respectively, with ranitidine (both P < 0.001 vs. omeprazole). The mean doses (+/- SD) required on days 1 and 3 for omeprazole were 235.8 +/- 44 mg and 134.0 +/- 37 mg (P < 0.0001), and ranitidine doses were 502.5 +/- 76 mg and 541.8 +/- 25 mg, respectively (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole infusions consistently maintained gastric pH above 4 over a period of 72 hours with progressively lower doses. Significant tolerance to the antisecretory effect of ranitidine infusion developed in 72 hours, which was not overcome despite individually titrated doses of more than 500 mg/24 hours. Consequently, application of pharmacodynamic results of single-day H2-blocker and proton-pump inhibitor studies to prolonged infusion trials for stress ulcer-related bleeding is inappropriate.

A review of our 402 motility records of patients undergoing evaluation of noncardiac chest pain identified 40 patients with the diagnosis of nutcracker esophagus. Gastroesophageal reflux was found in 13 of 20 patients (65%) who underwent pH studies, and endoscopy detected one patient with erosive esophagitis. Thus, at least 14 (35%) of our nutcracker esophagus patients had evidence of reflux. Twelve of these subjects agreed to enter an open-label therapeutic trial. After 8 wk of intensive antireflux treatment with high doses of ranitidine or omeprazole, repeat 24-h pH studies and endoscopy demonstrated normalization of pH parameters and healing of esophagitis in all patients. Ten (83%) patients obtained significant symptomatic improvement in frequency of pain episodes, number of days with pain, and pain severity. However, repeat manometry showed normalization of motor findings in only two (18%) patients. These observations warrant further placebo-controlled trials. Until more information is available, the results of this study suggest that gastroesophageal reflux should be excluded in patients with noncardiac chest pain and nutcracker esophagus before initiation of smooth muscle relaxant therapy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Dilatation combined with subsequent pharmacological control of gastroesophageal reflux represents a logical but poorly documented approach to the management of benign esophageal stricture. This large trial (366 patients) aimed to assess whether omeprazole as the most effective available medication for gastroesophageal reflux disease prevents recurrent stricture formation. METHODS: Patients (n = 366) were randomized in a double-blind study to undergo either omeprazole (20 mg once daily; 180 evaluable patients) or ranitidine therapy (150 mg twice daily; 185 evaluable patients) for 1 year after dilatation to 12-18-mm diameter (36-54F gauge). Subsequently, endoscopy and dilatation were performed when clinically indicated and endoscopy on completion. Symptoms were assessed at clinic visits every 3 months and using weekly diary cards. RESULTS: Fewer patients undergoing omeprazole therapy required redilatation compared with those on ranitidine (43 of 143 [30%] vs. 66 of 143 [46%] by 12 months; P < 0.01), and patients in the omeprazole group needed fewer redilatations during the year (0.48 vs. 1.08; P < 0.01). On completion, symptom relief favored omeprazole: 76% of patients in the omeprazole group were free of dysphagia (compared with 64% in the ranitidine group; P < 0.05); 83% were able to accept a normal diet (69%; P < 0.01); and 65% were completely asymptomatic (43%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, was more effective than ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily, as prophylaxis against stricture recurrence and in providing symptom relief.