Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anaprazole (40 mg and 60 mg) and compared with rabeprazole (20 mg) in the treatment of reflux esophagitis (RE).Methods:This multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, positive drug parallel controlled study was led by the First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University (Shanghai Changhai Hospital) and a total of 24 clinical trial institutions nationwide including the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Yichun People′s Hospital, Meihekou Central Hospital, the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, and Jinhua Central Hospital, participated in this research. A total of 156 patients with RE (Los Angeles grade A to D) were enrolled and randomly divided into 3 groups, anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazole 60 mg group and rabeprazole 20 mg group, using a random number table in a ratio of 1∶1∶1. Patients in the above 3 groups were treated with the appropriate trial medication once per day for 4 or 8 weeks. The endoscopic healing rates were evaluated by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) and investigators. In addition, the improvement in the severity of individual symptoms (daytime reflux, daytime heartburn, nighttime reflux, nighttime heartburn) and medication safety were also evaluated. The endoscopic healing rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) at week-8 and -4 were calculated by groups, as well as the difference in the healing rates and their 95% CI among groups. The chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Results:A total of 153 subjects were included in the full analysis set (FAS), 144 in the per-protocol analysis set (PPS) and 151 in the safety set (SS). In the FAS, after 8 weeks of treatment, the endoscopic healing rates of anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazde 60 mg group and raberazole 20 mg group blindly assessed by BICR were 86.0% (43/50), 86.5% (45/52) and 86.3% (44/51), respectively, and the 95% CI were 76.4% to 95.6%, 77.3% to 95.8% and 76.8% to 95.7%, respectively.The endoscopic healing rates of anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazde 60 mg group and raberazole 20 mg group blindly evaluated by investigators were 88.0% (44/50), 90.4% (47/52) and 86.3% (44/51), respectively, and the 95% CI were 79.0% to 97.0%, 82.4% to 98.4% and 76.8% to 95.7%, respectively. The endoscopic healing rates were similar among groups. In the FAS, the differences in healing rates(95% CI) assessed by BICR and investigators between anaprazole 40 mg, anaprazole 60 mg and rabeprazole 20 mg group were -0.3%(-13.7% to 13.2%), 0.6%(-12.3% to 13.6%), respectively and 1.7%(-11.3% to 14.8%), 3.9%(-8.5% to 16.3%), respectively. The results of the PPS were consistent with those of the FAS. After 8 weeks of treatment, the severity scores of individual symptoms (daytime reflux, daytime heartburn, nighttime reflux, nighttime heartburn) decreased in all groups. The differences between post-treatment and baseline in anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazole 60 mg group and rabeprazole 20 mg group were -1.54±1.00, -1.91±1.00, -1.51±0.76, -1.45±0.71; -1.30±0.94, -1.59±0.96, -1.33±0.65, -1.42±0.60; and -1.74±0.85, -1.76±0.93, -1.45±0.66, -1.66±0.79, respectively. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse event of anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazole 60 mg group and rabeprazole 20 mg group were 57.1% (28/49), 48.1% (25/52) and 60.0% (30/50), respectively, and the incidence of treatment related adverse event were 18.4% (9/24), 25.0% (13/52) and 24.0% (12/50), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of treatment emergent adverse event and treatment related adverse event among 3 groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion:The efficacy and safety of anaprazole 40, 60 mg/d, and rabeprazole 20 mg/d in the treatment of RE are comparable.

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anaprazole (40 mg and 60 mg) and compared with rabeprazole (20 mg) in the treatment of reflux esophagitis (RE).Methods:This multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, positive drug parallel controlled study was led by the First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University (Shanghai Changhai Hospital) and a total of 24 clinical trial institutions nationwide including the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Yichun People′s Hospital, Meihekou Central Hospital, the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, and Jinhua Central Hospital, participated in this research. A total of 156 patients with RE (Los Angeles grade A to D) were enrolled and randomly divided into 3 groups, anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazole 60 mg group and rabeprazole 20 mg group, using a random number table in a ratio of 1∶1∶1. Patients in the above 3 groups were treated with the appropriate trial medication once per day for 4 or 8 weeks. The endoscopic healing rates were evaluated by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) and investigators. In addition, the improvement in the severity of individual symptoms (daytime reflux, daytime heartburn, nighttime reflux, nighttime heartburn) and medication safety were also evaluated. The endoscopic healing rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) at week-8 and -4 were calculated by groups, as well as the difference in the healing rates and their 95% CI among groups. The chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Results:A total of 153 subjects were included in the full analysis set (FAS), 144 in the per-protocol analysis set (PPS) and 151 in the safety set (SS). In the FAS, after 8 weeks of treatment, the endoscopic healing rates of anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazde 60 mg group and raberazole 20 mg group blindly assessed by BICR were 86.0% (43/50), 86.5% (45/52) and 86.3% (44/51), respectively, and the 95% CI were 76.4% to 95.6%, 77.3% to 95.8% and 76.8% to 95.7%, respectively.The endoscopic healing rates of anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazde 60 mg group and raberazole 20 mg group blindly evaluated by investigators were 88.0% (44/50), 90.4% (47/52) and 86.3% (44/51), respectively, and the 95% CI were 79.0% to 97.0%, 82.4% to 98.4% and 76.8% to 95.7%, respectively. The endoscopic healing rates were similar among groups. In the FAS, the differences in healing rates(95% CI) assessed by BICR and investigators between anaprazole 40 mg, anaprazole 60 mg and rabeprazole 20 mg group were -0.3%(-13.7% to 13.2%), 0.6%(-12.3% to 13.6%), respectively and 1.7%(-11.3% to 14.8%), 3.9%(-8.5% to 16.3%), respectively. The results of the PPS were consistent with those of the FAS. After 8 weeks of treatment, the severity scores of individual symptoms (daytime reflux, daytime heartburn, nighttime reflux, nighttime heartburn) decreased in all groups. The differences between post-treatment and baseline in anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazole 60 mg group and rabeprazole 20 mg group were -1.54±1.00, -1.91±1.00, -1.51±0.76, -1.45±0.71; -1.30±0.94, -1.59±0.96, -1.33±0.65, -1.42±0.60; and -1.74±0.85, -1.76±0.93, -1.45±0.66, -1.66±0.79, respectively. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse event of anaprazole 40 mg group, anaprazole 60 mg group and rabeprazole 20 mg group were 57.1% (28/49), 48.1% (25/52) and 60.0% (30/50), respectively, and the incidence of treatment related adverse event were 18.4% (9/24), 25.0% (13/52) and 24.0% (12/50), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of treatment emergent adverse event and treatment related adverse event among 3 groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion:The efficacy and safety of anaprazole 40, 60 mg/d, and rabeprazole 20 mg/d in the treatment of RE are comparable.

Background::The pharmacokinetic and clinical behaviors of many proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in peptic ulcer treatment are altered by CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms. This non-inferiority study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the novel PPI anaprazole compared with rabeprazole. We also explored the influence of Helicobacter pylori ( H. pylori) infection status and CYP2C19 polymorphism on anaprazole. Methods::In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, positive-drug parallel-controlled, phase III study, Chinese patients with duodenal ulcers were randomized 1:1 to receive rabeprazole 10 mg + anaprazole placebo or rabeprazole placebo + anaprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the 4-week ulcer healing rate assessed by blinded independent review. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with improved overall and individual duodenal ulcer symptoms at 4 weeks. Furthermore, exploratory subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint by H. pylori status and CYP2C19 polymorphism was conducted. Adverse events were monitored for safety. Non-inferiority analysis was conducted for the primary endpoint. Results::The study enrolled 448 patients (anaprazole, n = 225; rabeprazole, n = 223). The 4-week healing rates were 90.9% and 93.7% for anaprazole and rabeprazole, respectively (difference, -2.8% [95% confidence interval, -7.7%, 2.2%]), demonstrating non-inferiority of anaprazole to rabeprazole. Overall duodenal ulcer symptoms improved in 90.9% and 92.5% of patients, respectively. Improvement rates of individual symptoms were similar between the groups. Healing rates did not significantly differ by H. pylori status or CYP2C19 genotype for either treatment group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for anaprazole (72/220, 32.7%) and rabeprazole (84/219, 38.4%). Conclusions::The efficacy of anaprazole is non-inferior to that of rabeprazole in Chinese patients with duodenal ulcers.Registration::ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04215653.

Objective To investigate the application of highly selective alpha 1-blockers in treatment of ureteral stone after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Methods One hundred and twenty patients with ureteral stone who accepted ESWL were divided into three groups by random digits table,each 40 cases. Tamsulosin group received tamsulosin (0.4 mg,once daily) after ESWL,doxazosin group received doxazosin (4 mg,once daily) ,control group were given no ureteral smooth musclar relaxant served. All patients were observed for 2 weeks. Results During the 2 weeks, only 4 patients withdrew due to adverse drug reactions. In tamsulosin group and doxazosin group, the stones expulsion rate [89.7%(35/39), 83.8%(31/37) respectively] were significantly higher than control group [65.0%(26/40)] (P＜0.05), the expulsion time [(3.1-1.2), (3.7 ± 1.4) d] were significantly lower than control group [(6.5 ±1.1) d] (P ＜0.05),the incidence of renal colic [12.8%(5/39), 21.6%(8/37)] and the stone street formation rate [7.7% (3/39), 13.5% (5/37)] were significantly lower than control group [45.0% (18/40) and 40.0% (16/40)] (P ＜ 0.05). But there was no significant difference between tamsulosin group and doxazosin group (P ＞ 0.05). Orthostatic hypotension occurred in 1 patient in tamsulosin group, but 7 patients experienced orthostatic hypotension in doxazosin group,the difference was significant (P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions Highly selective alpha 1-blockers can improve the stone-free rate of ureteral stone after ESWL,reduce expulsion time,decrease renal colic rate,and it is safe and tolerated. It can be regarded as an auxiliary clearance method after ESWL for ureteral stone.