Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the psychosocial characteristics of functional dyspepsia (FD) with its subgroups, epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) and postprandial distress syndrome (PDS), against a healthy control group, and to investigate the quality of life (QoL). Methods: All of the subjects were 210 adults, 131 patients with FD were diagnosed by gastroenterologist and 79 adults with no observable symptoms of FD were selected as the normal control group. Demographic factors were investigated. The Korean-Beck Depression Inventory-II, Korean-Beck Anxiety Inventory, Korean-Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and WHO Quality of Life Assessment Instrument Brief Form were used to assess psychological factors. A one-way analysis of variance was used to compare differences among the groups. Further, a stepwise regression analysis was conducted to determine factors affecting the QoL of the FD group. Results: Between-group differences in demographic characteristics were not significant. Depression (F=37.166, p<0.001), anxiety (F=30.261, p<0.001), and childhood trauma (F=6.591, p<0.01) were all significantly higher in FD group compared to the normal control. Among FD subgroups, EPS exhibited higher levels of both depression and anxiety than PDS. Social support (F=17.673, p<0.001) and resilience (F=8.425, p<0.001) were significantly lower in FD group than in other groups, and the values were higher in PDS than in EPS. Resilience (β=0.328, p<0.001) was the most important explanatory variable. The explained variance was 46.6%. Conclusion Significantly more symptoms of depression, anxiety, childhood trauma was observed for both FD sub-group. These groups also had less social support, resilience, and QoL than the control groups.

Chronic constipation is one of the most common digestive diseases encountered in clinical practice. Constipation manifests as a variety of symptoms, such as infrequent bowel movements, hard stools, feeling of incomplete evacuation, straining at defecation, a sense of anorectal blockage during defecation, and use of digital maneuvers to assist defecation. During the diagnosis of chronic constipation, the Bristol Stool Form Scale, colonoscopy, and a digital rectal examination are useful for objective symptom evaluation and differential diagnosis of secondary constipation. Physiological tests for functional constipation have complementary roles and are recommended for patients who have failed to respond to treatment with available laxatives and those who are strongly suspected of having a defecatory disorder. As new evidence on the diagnosis and management of functional constipation emerged, the need to revise the previous guideline was suggested. Therefore, these evidence-based guidelines have proposed recommendations developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment options available for functional constipation. The benefits and cautions of new pharmacological agents (such as lubiprostone and linaclotide) and conventional laxatives have been described through a meta-analysis. The guidelines consist of 34 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and epidemiology of functional constipation, 9 regarding diagnoses, and 22 regarding managements. Clinicians (including primary physicians, general health professionals, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients can refer to these guidelines to make informed decisions regarding the management of functional constipation.

Background/Aims: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common chronic gastrointestinal disorder that typically requires long-term maintenance therapy. However, little is known about patient preferences and satisfaction and real-world prescription patterns regarding maintenance therapy for GERD. Methods: This observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study involved patients from 18 referral hospitals in Korea. We surveyed patients who had been prescribed proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for GERD for at least 90 days with a minimum follow-up duration of 1 year. The main outcome was overall patient satisfaction with different maintenance therapy modalities. Results: A total of 197 patients were enrolled. Overall patient satisfaction, patient preferences, and GERD health-related quality of life scores did not significantly differ among the maintenance therapy modality groups. However, the on-demand therapy group experienced a significantly longer disease duration than the continuous therapy group. The continuous therapy group demonstrated a lower level of awareness of potential adverse effects associated with PPIs than the on-demand therapy group but received higher doses of PPIs than the on-demand therapy group. The prescribed doses of PPIs also varied based on the phenotype of GERD, with higher doses prescribed for non-erosive reflux disease than erosive reflux disease. Conclusion Although overall patient satisfaction did not significantly differ among the different PPI maintenance therapy modality groups, awareness of potential adverse effects was significantly different between the on-demand and continuous therapy groups.

Background/Aims: It remains unclear which maintenance treatment modality is most appropriate for mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).We aimed to compare on-demand treatment with continuous treatment using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in the maintenance treatment for patients with non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis. Methods: Patients whose GERD symptoms improved after 4 weeks of standard dose PPI treatment were prospectively enrolled at 25 hospitals.Subsequently, the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to either an on-demand or a continuous maintenance treatment group, and followed in an 8-week interval for up to 24 weeks. Results: A total of 304 patients were randomized to maintenance treatment (continuous, n = 151 vs on-demand, n = 153). The primary outcome, the overall proportion of unwillingness to continue the assigned maintenance treatment modality, failed to confirm the noninferiority of on-demand treatment (45.9%) compared to continuous treatment (36.1%). Compared with the on-demand group, the GERD symptom and health-related quality of life scores significantly more improved and the overall satisfaction score was significantly higher in the continuous treatment group, particularly at week 8 and week 16 of maintenance treatment. Work impairment scores were not different in the 2 groups, but the prescription cost was less in the on-demand group. Serum gastrin levels significantly elevated in the continuous treatment group, but not in the on-demand group. Conclusions Continuous treatment seems to be more appropriate for the initial maintenance treatment of non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis than on-demand treatment. Stepping down to on-demand treatment needs to be considered after a sufficient period of continuous treatment.

Background/Aims: Efficacy of proton pump inhibitors is limited in patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of esomeprazole with sodium bicarbonate and esomeprazole alone. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority comparative study. A total of 379 patients with NERD were randomly allocated to receive either EsoduoⓇ/sup> (esomeprazole 20 mg with sodium bicarbonate 800 mg) or NexiumⓇ/sup> (esomeprazole 20 mg) once daily for 4 weeks from January 2019 to December 2019. The patients had a history of heartburn for at least 2 days in the week before randomization as well as in the last 3 months and no esophageal mucosal breaks on endoscopy. The primary endpoint was a complete cure of heartburn at week 4. The secondary and exploratory endpoints as well as the safety profiles were compared in the groups at weeks 2 and 4. Results: A total of 355 patients completed the study (180 in the EsoduoⓇ/sup> group and 175 in the NexiumⓇ/sup> group). The proportions of patients without heartburn in the entire 4th week of treatment were not different between the two groups (33.33% in the EsoduoⓇ/sup> group and 35% in the NexiumⓇ/sup> group, p=0.737). There were no significant differences in most of the secondary and exploratory endpoints as well as the safety profiles. Conclusions EsoduoⓇ/sup> is as effective and safe as NexiumⓇ/sup> for managing typical symptoms in patients with NERD (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT03928470).