Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if a short course of a potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) test can guide treatment of adults with typical reflux symptoms as effectively as standard physiologic testing with endoscopy and 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring. It will also learn about the safety of PCAB-guided management.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Participants will:
This protocol describes a single-center, randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial comparing a potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) test-guided strategy with physiologic test-guided management in adults with typical reflux symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
The study will enroll approximately 120 participants aged 18-70 years with heartburn, regurgitation, or non-cardiac chest pain, and will exclude patients with Barrett's esophagus, peptic ulcer, prior upper GI surgery, significant comorbidities, or recent use of potent anti-secretory, neuromodulator, or prokinetic agents.
Participants are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a 7-day vonoprazan-based PCAB test or to a reference strategy using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) plus 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring and high-resolution manometry in accordance with Lyon Consensus 2.0 and Rome IV criteria.
The primary objective is to determine whether PCAB test-guided treatment is non-inferior to physiologic test-guided treatment with respect to clinical response, defined by improvement in reflux symptoms after 4 weeks of allocated therapy.
Secondary objectives include: (1) assessment of the diagnostic performance of the PCAB test for pathologic acid reflux using 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring as the reference standard; (2) comparison of changes in Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) scores, Likert symptom scales for heartburn, regurgitation and chest pain, EQ-5D quality-of-life scores, symptom-free days, rescue antaciduse, and patient satisfaction; and (3) evaluation of treatment-emergent adverse events andserious adverse events.
In the PCAB arm, vonoprazan 20 mg twice daily for 7 days constitutes the diagnostic test; PCAB responders and non-responders are then allocated to proton pump inhibitor (omeprazole-based) or neuromodulator (nortriptyline-based) regimens with matching placebos according to the underlying GERD phenotype (erosive esophagitis, non-erosive reflux disease,reflux hypersensitivity, or functional heartburn). In the physiologic-test arm, treatment selection (omeprazole versus nortriptyline, with placebos) is based directly on EGD and 24-hour pH-impedance findings and symptom association analysis. Outcomes are measured at multiple time points over 4 weeks using RDQ, symptom Likert scales, EQ-5D, symptom and antacid diaries, and standard safety assessments, and data will be analyzed primarily using non-inferiority methods for proportions and standard diagnostic accuracy metrics (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios), with appropriate parametric ornon-parametric tests and longitudinal models.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCAB-test guided | Experimental | All patients assigned in PCAB-test guide group will receive esophagodeuodenoscopy, 24-hr pH and impedance monitoring then Vonoprazan 20 mg orally twice daily was prescribed for 7 days. |
|
| Physiologic-test guided | No Intervention | All patients assigned in Physiologic-test guided group will receive esophagodeuodenoscopy, 24-hr pH and impedance monitoring. |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCAB-test guided | Diagnostic Test | All participants in PCAB-test guided group will receive vonoprazan 20 mg orally twice daily for 7 days |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Proportion of Participants with Clinical Response to Treatment | To compare the proportion of participants with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms who achieve a clinical response to treatment. This will be compared between the group receiving treatment guided by the PCAB (Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker) test and the group receiving treatment guided by physiological testing. | 4 weeks |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic Performance of the PCAB Test for Pathologic Acid Reflux | To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the PCAB test in identifying pathologic acid reflux. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) and physiological testing, interpreted according to the Lyon Consensus 2.0 criteria, will be used as the reference standard. | Baseline |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Monthira Maneerattanaporn, MD | Mahidol University | Principal Investigator |
| Somchai Leelakusolvong, MD | Mahidol University | Study Chair |
| Tanawat Geeratragool, MD | Mahidol University | Study Chair |
| Siwakan Phuetphaichit, MD | Mahidol University | Study Chair |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University | Bangkok Noi | Bangkok | 10700 | Thailand |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17198454 | Background | Nasseri-Moghaddam S, Razjouyan H, Nouraei M, Alimohammadi M, Mamarabadi M, Vahedi H, Pourshams A, Mohamadnejad M, Zamani F, Sadr F, Darvish-Moghaddam S, Farsi P, Malekzadeh R. Inter- and intra-observer variability of the Los Angeles classification: a reassessment. Arch Iran Med. 2007 Jan;10(1):48-53. | |
| 40419956 | Background |
Not provided
Not provided
To protect participant confidentiality and comply with institutional and regulatory requirements, no IPD will be shared unless with reasonable request.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D005764 | Gastroesophageal Reflux |
| D006356 | Heartburn |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D015154 | Esophageal Motility Disorders |
| D003680 | Deglutition Disorders |
| D004935 | Esophageal Diseases |
| D005767 | Gastrointestinal Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
This single-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial consists of two phases and aims to evaluate patients with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD symptoms. In phase 1, participants are randomized to either a PCAB-test-guided group or a physiologic-test-guided group. All patients undergo esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring, and related baseline assessments; patients in the PCAB-guided group additionally receive vonoprazan 20 "mg" twice daily for 7 days. A positive PCAB test is defined as a greater than 50% reduction in Reflux Disease Questionnaire RDQ score from baseline, and its diagnostic performance is compared with the Lyon Consensus 2.0 criteria. In phase 2, treatment is assigned according to prior test results, with patients receiving either omeprazole or nortriptyline, and clinical response at week 4 is compared between the PCAB-guided and physiologic-test-guided strategies.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Change in GERD Symptom Severity (Likert Scale) | To compare treatment outcomes between the PCAB test-guided and physiological testing-guided groups using a Likert scale to assess the severity of heartburn, regurgitation, and chest pain. Subgroup analysis will be performed for erosive esophagitis, non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), reflux hypersensitivity, and functional heartburn. | Baseline and at 4 weeks |
| Change in Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) Score | The Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) is a 12-item self-administered questionnaire assessing the frequency and severity of heartburn, regurgitation, and dyspeptic symptoms. Each item is scored from 0 to 5, and the overall RDQ score is calculated as the mean of the item scores, ranging from 0 to 5. Higher scores indicate more frequent and/or severe symptoms and therefore a worse outcome. The change in RDQ score from baseline to week 4 will be compared between the potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) test-guided group and the physiological testing-guided group. A greater reduction in the RDQ score indicates greater symptom improvement. | Baseline and at 4 weeks |
| Percentage of Symptom-Free Days | To compare the percentage of 24-hour days without GERD symptoms between the two study arms over the 4-week study period. | Up to 4 weeks |
| Frequency of Rescue Antacid Use | To compare the frequency of rescue antacid use and the percentage of 24-hour days without the need for rescue antacids between the two study arms. | Up to 4 weeks |
| Change in Quality of Life (EQ-5D) | The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire assesses health-related quality of life across five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has five response levels, ranging from no problems to extreme problems or inability to perform the activity. Responses will be converted into an EQ-5D-5L index score using the Thai value set. Index scores range from -0.4212 to 1.000, with 1.000 representing full health and scores below 0 representing health states considered worse than death. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life. Change will be calculated as the week 4 score minus the baseline score; a positive change indicates improvement. The change in index score will be compared between the P-CAB test-guided and physiological testing-guided groups. | Baseline and at 4 weeks |
| Proportion of Participants Satisfied With the Assigned Treatment Protocol at Week 4 | Overall treatment satisfaction will be assessed using a single-item 5-point Likert scale: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied. Participants selecting a score of 4 or 5 will be classified as satisfied. The proportion of satisfied participants will be compared between the P-CAB test-guided and physiological testing-guided groups. | At 4 weeks |
| Rate of Study Withdrawal Due to Severe Symptoms | To compare the number of participants in each arm who discontinue the study due to symptoms severely interfering with their daily life activities. | Up to 4 weeks |
| Incidence of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) | To assess and compare the safety profile, including the number of participants experiencing TEAEs and SAEs, between the PCAB test-guided treatment group and the physiological testing-guided treatment group. | Up to 4 weeks |
| Participant Satisfaction With the Diagnostic Testing Method Assessed Using a Study-Specific 5-Point Likert Scale | Immediately after completing the assigned diagnostic procedure, participants will rate their overall satisfaction with the diagnostic testing method using a study-specific single-item 5-point Likert scale: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied. Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Satisfaction scores will be compared between participants undergoing the P-CAB test and those undergoing physiological testing. | Immediately after completion of diagnostic testing on Day 0 |
| Prevalence of GERD Phenotypes | To determine the prevalence of erosive esophagitis, non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), reflux hypersensitivity, and functional heartburn among participants with typical GERD symptoms. Diagnosis and phenotyping will be established using 24-hour pH monitoring combined with EGD, according to the Lyon Consensus 2.0 criteria. | Baseline |
| Dong P, Lin L, Sun K, Tang F, Li Q, Zhou X, Liu F, Yang Z, Li J, Jiang L, Zhao P, Sun X, Wang Q. Accuracy of the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease by a trial of potassium-competitive acid blocker treatment. BMC Gastroenterol. 2025 May 26;25(1):406. doi: 10.1186/s12876-025-03981-1. |
| 24750261 | Background | Dickman R, Maradey-Romero C, Fass R. The role of pain modulators in esophageal disorders - no pain no gain. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014 May;26(5):603-10. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12339. |
| 40471840 | Background | Shah ED, Gyawali CP, Chan WW. Optimizing the Cost-Effective Evaluation of Gastroesophageal Reflux by Typical Symptom Phenotypes After Failure of Empiric Acid Suppression Trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2026 Mar 1;121(3):635-648. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003576. Epub 2025 Jun 5. |
| 27287852 | Background | Otake K, Sakurai Y, Nishida H, Fukui H, Tagawa Y, Yamasaki H, Karashima M, Otsuka K, Inatomi N. Characteristics of the Novel Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker Vonoprazan Fumarate (TAK-438). Adv Ther. 2016 Jul;33(7):1140-57. doi: 10.1007/s12325-016-0345-2. Epub 2016 Jun 10. |
| 29739175 | Background | Oshima T, Miwa H. Potent Potassium-competitive Acid Blockers: A New Era for the Treatment of Acid-related Diseases. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018 Jul 30;24(3):334-344. doi: 10.5056/jnm18029. |
| 30595950 | Background | Rawla P, Sunkara T, Ofosu A, Gaduputi V. Potassium-competitive acid blockers - are they the next generation of proton pump inhibitors? World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Dec 13;9(7):63-68. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.v9.i7.63. |
| 15068979 | Background | Numans ME, Lau J, de Wit NJ, Bonis PA. Short-term treatment with proton-pump inhibitors as a test for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test characteristics. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr 6;140(7):518-27. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00011. |
| 16167971 | Background | Dickman R, Emmons S, Cui H, Sewell J, Hernandez D, Esquivel RF, Fass R. The effect of a therapeutic trial of high-dose rabeprazole on symptom response of patients with non-cardiac chest pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Sep 15;22(6):547-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02620.x. |
| 15142202 | Background | Bautista J, Fullerton H, Briseno M, Cui H, Fass R. The effect of an empirical trial of high-dose lansoprazole on symptom response of patients with non-cardiac chest pain--a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004 May 15;19(10):1123-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01941.x. |
| 12562449 | Background | Xia HH, Lai KC, Lam SK, Hu WH, Wong NY, Hui WM, Lau CP, Chen WH, Chan CK, Wong WM, Wong BC. Symptomatic response to lansoprazole predicts abnormal acid reflux in endoscopy-negative patients with non-cardiac chest pain. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003 Feb;17(3):369-77. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01436.x. |
| 12352293 | Background | Pandak WM, Arezo S, Everett S, Jesse R, DeCosta G, Crofts T, Gennings C, Siuta M, Zfass A. Short course of omeprazole: a better first diagnostic approach to noncardiac chest pain than endoscopy, manometry, or 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2002 Oct;35(4):307-14. doi: 10.1097/00004836-200210000-00006. |
| 11495074 | Background | Juul-Hansen P, Rydning A, Jacobsen CD, Hansen T. High-dose proton-pump inhibitors as a diagnostic test of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in endoscopic-negative patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2001 Aug;36(8):806-10. doi: 10.1080/003655201750313315. |
| 7654116 | Background | Schindlbeck NE, Klauser AG, Voderholzer WA, Muller-Lissner SA. Empiric therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Arch Intern Med. 1995 Sep 11;155(16):1808-12. |
| 10527293 | Background | Fass R, Ofman JJ, Gralnek IM, Johnson C, Camargo E, Sampliner RE, Fennerty MB. Clinical and economic assessment of the omeprazole test in patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Arch Intern Med. 1999 Oct 11;159(18):2161-8. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.18.2161. |
| 9489902 | Background | Johnsson F, Weywadt L, Solhaug JH, Hernqvist H, Bengtsson L. One-week omeprazole treatment in the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1998 Jan;33(1):15-20. doi: 10.1080/00365529850166149. |
| 9892880 | Background | Bate CM, Riley SA, Chapman RW, Durnin AT, Taylor MD. Evaluation of omeprazole as a cost-effective diagnostic test for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999 Jan;13(1):59-66. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.1999.00429.x. |
| 9362179 | Background | Schenk BE, Kuipers EJ, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Festen HP, Jansen EH, Tuynman HA, Schrijver M, Dieleman LA, Meuwissen SG. Omeprazole as a diagnostic tool in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997 Nov;92(11):1997-2000. |
| 9649457 | Background | Fass R, Fennerty MB, Ofman JJ, Gralnek IM, Johnson C, Camargo E, Sampliner RE. The clinical and economic value of a short course of omeprazole in patients with noncardiac chest pain. Gastroenterology. 1998 Jul;115(1):42-9. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(98)70363-4. |
| 37734911 | Background | Gyawali CP, Yadlapati R, Fass R, Katzka D, Pandolfino J, Savarino E, Sifrim D, Spechler S, Zerbib F, Fox MR, Bhatia S, de Bortoli N, Cho YK, Cisternas D, Chen CL, Cock C, Hani A, Remes Troche JM, Xiao Y, Vaezi MF, Roman S. Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0. Gut. 2024 Jan 5;73(2):361-371. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-330616. |
| 17245209 | Background | Fass R. Erosive esophagitis and nonerosive reflux disease (NERD): comparison of epidemiologic, physiologic, and therapeutic characteristics. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2007 Feb;41(2):131-7. doi: 10.1097/01.mcg.0000225631.07039.6d. |
| 34980685 | Background | Kang SJ, Jung HK, Tae CH, Kim SY, Lee KJ. On-demand Versus Continuous Maintenance Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease With Proton Pump Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2022 Jan 30;28(1):5-14. doi: 10.5056/jnm21095. |
| 16700900 | Background | Scarpignato C, Pelosini I. Review article: the opportunities and benefits of extended acid suppression. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Jun;23 Suppl 2:23-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02945.x. |
| 7766740 | Background | Robinson M, Sahba B, Avner D, Jhala N, Greski-Rose PA, Jennings DE. A comparison of lansoprazole and ranitidine in the treatment of erosive oesophagitis. Multicentre Investigational Group. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1995 Feb;9(1):25-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.1995.tb00347.x. |
| 23926926 | Background | Patcharatrakul T, Gonlachanvit S. Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms in typical and atypical GERD: roles of gastroesophageal acid refluxes and esophageal motility. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Feb;29(2):284-90. doi: 10.1111/jgh.12347. |
| 10566701 | Background | Moayyedi P, Axon AT. The usefulness of the likelihood ratio in the diagnosis of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Nov;94(11):3122-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01502.x. |
| 16011666 | Background | Fass R, Shapiro M, Dekel R, Sewell J. Systematic review: proton-pump inhibitor failure in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease--where next? Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Jul 15;22(2):79-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02531.x. |
| 11280530 | Background | Richter JE, Kahrilas PJ, Johanson J, Maton P, Breiter JR, Hwang C, Marino V, Hamelin B, Levine JG; Esomeprazole Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in GERD patients with erosive esophagitis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Mar;96(3):656-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.3600_b.x. |
| 19136523 | Background | Fass R, Sifrim D. Management of heartburn not responding to proton pump inhibitors. Gut. 2009 Feb;58(2):295-309. doi: 10.1136/gut.2007.145581. |
| 9178669 | Background | Chiba N, De Gara CJ, Wilkinson JM, Hunt RH. Speed of healing and symptom relief in grade II to IV gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 1997 Jun;112(6):1798-810. doi: 10.1053/gast.1997.v112.pm9178669. |
| 20535321 | Background | Hershcovici T, Fass R. Nonerosive Reflux Disease (NERD) - An Update. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010 Jan;16(1):8-21. doi: 10.5056/jnm.2010.16.1.8. Epub 2010 Jan 31. |
| 23992024 | Background | de Bortoli N, Martinucci I, Savarino E, Bellini M, Bredenoord AJ, Franchi R, Bertani L, Furnari M, Savarino V, Blandizzi C, Marchi S. Proton pump inhibitor responders who are not confirmed as GERD patients with impedance and pH monitoring: who are they? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014 Jan;26(1):28-35. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12221. Epub 2013 Aug 29. |
| 22309489 | Background | Weijenborg PW, Cremonini F, Smout AJ, Bredenoord AJ. PPI therapy is equally effective in well-defined non-erosive reflux disease and in reflux esophagitis: a meta-analysis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012 Aug;24(8):747-57, e350. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2012.01888.x. Epub 2012 Feb 6. |
| 19210298 | Background | Metz DC, Howden CW, Perez MC, Larsen L, O'Neil J, Atkinson SN. Clinical trial: dexlansoprazole MR, a proton pump inhibitor with dual delayed-release technology, effectively controls symptoms and prevents relapse in patients with healed erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Apr 1;29(7):742-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.03954.x. Epub 2009 Feb 7. |
| 16928254 | Background | Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R; Global Consensus Group. The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug;101(8):1900-20; quiz 1943. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x. |
| D004066 | Digestive System Diseases |
| D012817 | Signs and Symptoms, Digestive |
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |