The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Esomeprazole (40 Mg) Compared With Lansoprazole (30 Mg) in The Treatment of Erosive Esophagitis
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Esomeprazole, the S isomer of omeprazole, has been shown to have higher healing rates of erosive esophagitis than omeprazole. This study compared esomeprazole with lansoprazole for the healing of erosive esophagitis and resolution of heartburn. METHODS: This United States multicenter, randomized, double blind, parallel group trial was performed in 5241 adult patients (intent-to-treat population) with endoscopically documented erosive esophagitis, which was graded by severity at baseline (Los Angeles classification). Patients received 40 mg of esomeprazole (n = 2624) or 30 mg of lansoprazole (n = 2617) once daily before breakfast for up to 8 wk. The primary efficacy endpoint was healing of erosive esophagitis at week 8. Secondary assessments included proportion of patients healed at week 4, resolution of investigator-recorded heartburn, time to first and time to sustained resolution of patient diary-recorded heartburn, and proportion of heartburn-free days and nights. RESULTS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) demonstrated significantly higher healing rates (92.6%, 95% CI = 91.5-93.6%) than lansoprazole (30 mg) (88.8%, 95% CI = 87.5-90.0%) at week 8 (p = 0.0001, life-table estimates, intent-to-treat analysis). A significant difference in healing rates favoring esomeprazole was also observed at week 4. The difference in healing rates between esomeprazole and lansoprazole increased as baseline severity of erosive esophagitis increased. Sustained resolution of heartburn occurred faster and in more patients treated with esomeprazole. Sustained resolution of nocturnal heartburn also occurred faster with esomeprazole. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) is more effective than lansoprazole (30 mg) in healing erosive esophagitis and resolving heartburn. Healing rates are consistently high with esomeprazole, irrespective of baseline disease severity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sharma, V. K., Leontiadis, G. I., & Howden, C. W. (2001) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.00904.x · Cited by 64
Cited by
Updated Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
DeVault, K. R., & Castell, D. O. (2005) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41217.x · Cited by 1,130
Self-citationGalmiche, J.-P., Hatlebakk, J., Attwood, S., Ell, C., Fiocca, R., Eklund, S., Långström, G., Lind, T., Lundell, L., & LOTUS Trial Collaborators, F. T. (2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.626 · Cited by 448
van Zanten, S. V., Armstrong, D., Chiba, N., Flook, N., White, R. J., Chakraborty, B., & Gasco, A. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00751.x · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Authors
- Castell, D. O., Kahrilas, P. J., Richter, J. E., Vakil, N. B., Johnson, D., Zuckerman, S., Skammer, W., & Levine, J. G.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Publisher
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Published
- 2002-03-01
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 575-583
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2123254140
- Cited by
- 436
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 35.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Esomeprazole (40 Mg) Compared With Lansoprazole (30 Mg) in The Treatment of Erosive Esophagitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-9270(01)04094-1
- The paper
- Castell, D. O., Kahrilas, P. J., Richter, J. E., Vakil, N. B., Johnson, D., Zuckerman, S., Skammer, W., & Levine, J. G. (2002). Esomeprazole (40 Mg) Compared With Lansoprazole (30 Mg) in The Treatment of Erosive Esophagitis. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9270(01)04094-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.