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 analyze the consistency and correlation of indirect calorimetry (IC) and Harris-Benedict estimation method (H-B) in measuring energy consumption in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), as well as the characteristics of energy metabolism at resting state of SAP patients with different etiologies, and so as to guide the formulation of clinical energy nutrition support program.Methods:From February 1 to December 31, 2019, 61 SAP patients admitted into the intensive care unit of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were enrolled. Collected relevant data of patients, such as the etiology of SAP, whether mechanical ventilation was needed, as well as the metabolic status. All SAP patients accepted IC test on the first day after admission to intensive care unit. According to the energy consumption measured by IC (hereinafter referred to as IC value) and the energy consumption measured by H-B (hereinafter referred to as H-B value), SAP patients were determined to be in high, normal or low metabolic state. Bland-Altman method and Pearson linear regression were used to analyze the consistency and correlation of the two methods in measuring energy consumption, and the linear equation was fitted. Paired t test was used for statistical analysis. Results:Among the 61 SAP patients, 13 cases were biliary SAP, 30 cases were hyperlipidemic SAP, 6 cases were alcoholic SAP, and 12 cases were SAP of other causes or unknown causes. Nineteen cases needed mechanical ventilation and 42 cases did not need mechanical ventilation. There were 70.5% (43/61) of SAP patients in high metabolic state, 13.1%(8/61) of SAP patients in normal metabolic state, and 16.4% (10/61) of SAP patients in low metabolic state. The IC value in 61 SAP patients was higher than H-B value((8 604.7±367.8) kJ/d vs. (6 491.2±133.7) kJ/d), and the difference was statistically significant ( t=5.95, P<0.001). The IC value in patients with hyperlipidemic, alcoholic and biliary SAP was (8 815.2±537.9), (7 631.2±890.5), and (8 108.0±933.1) kJ/d, respectively, and the H-B value was (6 869.6±204.5), (5 916.8±153.7), and (5 974.2±200.9) kJ/d, respectively. The IC value in patients with biliary or hyperlipidemic SAP were higher than H-B value, and the differences were statistically significant( t=2.29 and 3.38, both P<0.05). The IC value and H-B value in SAP patients with mechanical ventilation and without mechanical ventilation were (10 485.0±741.1) and (6 462.6±222.8) kJ/d, (6 595.1±364.7) and (6 503.2±166.7) kJ/d, respectively. The IC value in SAP patients with mechanical ventilation was higher than H-B value and the IC value in SAP patients without mechanical ventilation, and the differences were statistically significant ( t=4.71 and 5.20, both P<0.001). The consistency analyzed by Bland-Altman method showed that the two methods had obvious biases, and the average bias value was 92.2 kJ/d. The result of Pearson linear regression analysis indicated that there was a linear relationship between two methods ( r=0.44, P<0.001). The linear equation fitted by the univariate regression was Y=1.240 6 X+ 154.42, in which X was the H-B value and Y was the IC value. Conclusions:SAP patients are mostly in a hypermetabolic state in the early stages of the disease. The IC value is higher than H-B value, and it is recommended to use IC to measure energy consumption in SAP patients.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Oryz-Aspergillus enzyme and pancreatin tablets (Combizym^®) in the treatment of postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) in the elderly, compared with gastrointestinal motility drugs. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was designed and registered in the China Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR-IPR-16008185). The elderly patients with PDS were randomly divided into three groups, including Mosapride group with Mosapride citrate tablets 5 mg 3 times per day for 2 weeks; Combizym^® group with Combizym tablets 244 mg 3 times per day for 2 weeks; combined treatment group with both drugs and same doses for 2 weeks. The modified Nepean dyspepsia index (NDSI) score, discomfort intensity score and PDS score were calculated on patients before treatment, at the end of first and second week of treatment, as well as 4 weeks after treatment finished, respectively. Adverse effects were evaluated. Results: A total of 323 patients from 16 tertiary hospitals in China were enrolled in this study. Among them, 105 patients were in Mosapride group, 109 in Combizym^® group and 109 in combined treatment group. There were 148 males (45.8%) and 175 females (54.2%) with median age 71.4±9.0 years (60-100 years). Baseline characteristics of three groups were comparable. After treatment, the NDSI scores in three groups all decreased significantly (P<0.001), while they were similar between groups (P>0.05). The discomfort intensity score and PDS score in three groups showed a significant reduction after treatment (P<0.001), especially in the combined treatment group. Compared with Mosapride group, the scores in Combizym^® group decreased significantly after one or two weeks [discomfort intensity score: after one week, 4.0(2.5, 8.0) vs. 6.0(3.0, 10.0); after two weeks, 3.0(0.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0(2.0, 6.0); all P<0.05. PDS score: after one week, 6.0(3.0, 9.0) vs. 7.0(3.5, 10.5); after two weeks, 3.0(0.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0(2.0, 7.0); all P<0.05]. The efficacy rate in all patients after first week of treatment was over 15.0%. The efficacy rates after two weeks were 55.2%, 68.8% and 73.4% in Mosapride group, Combizym^® group and combined treatment group, respectively. After two week treatment, the efficacy rates in Combizym^® group (P=0.041) and combined group (P=0.006) were higher than that of Mosapride group. The recurrence rate of Mosapride group was 9.5%, which was significantly higher than that of Combizym^® group (1.8%, P<0.05) and combined treatment group (1.8%, P<0.05). There were no serious adverse effects in the three groups. Conclusions The efficacy of Oryz-Aspergillus enzyme and pancreatin tablets is comparable with that of Mosapride in elderly PDS patients, with fewer adverse effects and low recurrence rate. Combination regimen indicates better efficacy than that of Oryz-Aspergillus enzyme and pancreatin tablets or Mosapride alone.

Since more than 30 years ago, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and papillary myotomy have been used to remove the cause of acute biliary pancreatitis. In the past 10 years, minimally invasive endoscopic technology has developed rapidly and has been widely used in the treatment of late complications of acute pancreatitis, such as infectious pancreatic necrosis, pancreatic pseudocyst, disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome, and gastrointestinal fistula. This article focuses on the advances in the application of endoscopy in the treatment of acute pancreatitis.

Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) is an acute severe disease with a high fatality rate. Initial doctor should accurately assess the disease severity and establish a multidisciplinary coordination and transfer plan. At the early stage, conservative medical treatment and organ support therapy are the main strategy. Minimally invasive intervention could be dominant in the management of complications such as infectious pancreatic necrosis, abdominal hemorrhage, gastrointestinal fistula and so on in the late course of the disease and surgical surgery could be administrated when necessary. During the recovery period, treatment of the etiologies, prevention of recurrence, local complications, and pancreatic endocrine and exocrine insufficiency also require multidisciplinary collaboration. Patient management of SAP through the whole course of the disease based on a multidisciplinary team is of great significance in increasing cure rate and improving quality of life.

Objective:To explore the reasons of the proximal migration of pancreatic stents and the endoscopic management.Methods:From April 2007 to January 2015, of all 967 patients with biliopancreatic diseases implanted with pancreatic duct plastic stents at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, proximal migration occurred in 10 cases. Migrated rates and endoscopic retrieval methods of pancreatic straight stents and single pigtail stents were compared.Results:Pancreatic straight stents showed a higher migration rate than those single pigtail ones [3.23% (7/217) VS 0.40% (3/750)]. For 3 migrated single pigtail pancreatic stents: 2 were directly removed with biopsy forceps. Another failed in retrieval, and the same stent then was implanted. There was no discomfort after the operation. For 7 migrated pancreatic straight stents: 2 were pulled out of duodenum papilla incision under wire-guided balloon and basket. Five others were pulled out of papilla under wire-guided balloon, and then the stents were removed by a snare.Conclusion:Pancreatic straight stents are more likely to migrate compared with single pigtail stents. Migrated pancreatic straight stents can be removed with wire-guided balloon or basket and snare, while migrated single pigtail stents can be directly retrieved with biopsy forceps.

Objective:To compare the clinical value of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and revised Marshall score in evaluating organ function in acute pancreatitis (AP).Methods:From January 2013 to December 2017, at the Department of Gastroenterology of The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, the clinical data of 3 957 hospitalized AP patients were collected through the AP electronic database. AP was diagnosed and the severity of the disease was classified according to the revised Atlanta classification criteria. Organ function was evaluated by modified Marshall score and SOFA score. The correlation between SOFA score and mortality, pancreatic necrosis were analyzed. Chi-square test and Spearman correlation analysis were performed for statistical analysis.Results:The incidences of circulatory failure and renal failure determined by the SOFA score were higher than those of the modified Marshall score (4.80%, 190/3 957 vs. 3.03%, 120/3 957; 10.11%, 400/3 957 vs. 6.44%, 255/3 957), and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=1 599.54 and 2 237.19, both P<0.01). Two score systems were consistent in determining the incidence of respiratory failure, which were 32.22% (1 275/3 957). The incidences of persistent circulatory failure (≥48 h) and persistent renal failure (≥48 h) determined by the SOFA score were higher than those of the modified Marshall score (1.64%, 65/3 957 vs. 0.76%, 30/3 957; 4.78%, 189/3 957 vs. 3.69%, 146/3 957), and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=1 458.37 and 2 398.01, both P<0.01). The incidence of persistent respiratory failure (≥48 h) was same determined by two score systems, which were 10.24% (405/3 957). The proportion of patients with severe AP determined by SOFA score was higher than that of the modified Marshall score (25.30%, 1 001/3 957 vs. 18.83%, 745/3 957), and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=718.216, P<0.01). The results of Spearman correlation analysis showed that SOFA total score was positively correlated with the overall mortality and the incidence of pancreatic necrosis (correlation coefficients r were 0.540 and 0.211, respectively), and the differences were statistically significant (both P<0.01). Conclusion:SOFA score can comprehensively evaluate organ function in AP and is an important approach in determining prognosis.

Objective: To investigate the associated factors and the independent risk factors for portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in cirrhotic patients and assess the influences of anticoagulation on esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) in these patients. Methods: From January 2012 to December 2012, 239 cirrhotic patients were diagnosed in our hospital. According to the presence or absence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT), they were divided into thrombus group (33 cases) and control group (206 cases). According to the presence or absence of EGVB in thrombus group, they were divided into bleeding group (10 cases) and non bleeding group (23 cases). According to whether anticoagulant therapy was used in thrombus group, they were divided into anticoagulant group (10 cases) and non anticoagulant group (23 cases). The risk factors of each group and its control group were observed and compared. Results: The thrombus group had a lower level of the albumin (ALB) , higher level of count of platelet (PLT), diameter of main portal vein (MPV), propotion of diabetes prevalence and history of splenectomy compared with the control group (P<0.01). According to unconditional logistic regression analysis, both the PLT and the diameter of MPV were identified as independent risk factors for PVT in cirrhotic patients (P=0.009, 0.001; OR=1.006, 16.858). There were significant differences in the degree of varicose veins and the proportion of sequential endoscopic treatment between the bleeding group and the control group (P<0.05). Moreover, the group treated with anticoagulant drugs and the group without anticoagulation were followed up and observed for 1 year, which showed no significant changes in the bleeding ratio between two groups [40% (4/10) versus 26.1% (6/23), P>0.05]. Conclusions ⑴ PLT, ALB, MPV, and a history of diabetes or splenectomy are risk factors for cirrhosis combined with PVT, and PLT and MPV are independent risk factors. ⑵ The incidence of EGVB increased with the increasing severity of esophagogastric varicose vein. The endoscopic variceal sequential treatment can contribute a significant reduction of EGVB in cirrhosis complicated by PVT. ⑶ Anticoagulant therapy may not raise the incidence of EGVB in cirrhotic patients with PVT.