There is a lack of consensus regarding the risk of postoperative hemorrhage in patients on antithrombotic therapy who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

Summary: Background: Vonoprazan (V), a potassium‐competitive acid blocker, has a more durable acid‐inhibitory effect as compared with standard‐dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) but has not been compared with 2‐4 times higher daily PPI doses administered in two divided doses.Aims: To evaluate the acid‐inhibitory effect of V 10/20 mg once‐daily (OD; V10/V20) vs rabeprazole (R) 10/20 mg twice‐daily (BID; R20/R40) in healthy Japanese volunteers.Methods: This multicentre, randomised, open‐label, two‐period, crossover study compared V10 or V20 vs R20, or V20 vs R40 using three cohorts of 10 healthy Japanese adults. Within each cohort, subjects were randomised to receive V or R for 7 days and, following a washout period ≥7 days, the other treatment for 7 days. On day 6 of each period, 24‐hours multichannel gastric impedance‐pH monitoring was performed. Percent times pH ≥ 3, ≥4 and ≥5 (pH 3, 4 and 5 holding time ratios [HTRs]) in 24 hours were evaluated as primary pharmacodynamic endpoints.Results: Acid‐inhibitory effect (24‐hours pH 3 HTR) of V20 was greater than those of R20 (91.0% vs 65.3%; P = .0049) and R40 (98.5% vs 85.9%; P = .0073). Similar results were obtained for 24‐hours pH 4 and 5 HTRs. V20 also achieved greater nocturnal pH 4 (91.5% vs 73.2%; P = .0319) and 5 HTRs (78.8% vs 62.2%; P = .0325) as compared with R40. One subject (20%) developed diarrhoea while receiving R40 which was considered treatment‐related.Conclusions: Compared with 2‐4 times the standard daily dose of R, V20 exerts a more potent and durable acid‐inhibitory effect. Trial identifier: UMIN000022198 (www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Background and Aim: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is reported to be a safe and reliable procedure for the elderly, but these reports could have already had a bias at the time ESD was performed. However, the reports have not clearly stated the criteria of indications. In the present study, we retrospectively elucidated the usefulness and problems of ESD for early gastric cancer in elderly patients (≥ 65 years) in comparison with non‐elderly patients. Methods: The subjects were selected from 412 consecutive patients with early gastric cancer (515 lesions) for which ESD was performed between June 2002 and February 2010. The following were used for analysis between groups: pre‐ and postoperative performance status (PS) of subjects, prevalence rates of pre‐existing comorbidities, characteristics of lesions, treatment outcomes, durations of hospitalization, operating times, incidence rates of complications and durations of hospitalization, and postoperative hemorrhage rates, and duration of hospitalization in patients with anticoagulant therapy. Results: Of the lesions in the elderly, four patients (1.0%) were elderly with a PS of 3. The PS increased to six patients (1.6%) after the procedure. None of the non‐elderly had a PS of 3 before or after the procedure. The ratio of patients with a pre‐existing comorbidity was higher in the elderly than in the non‐elderly. There were no differences between the two groups in the characteristics of the lesions, their duration of hospitalization, their operating times, or the incidence rates of complications. However, the elderly with perforations had a significantly longer hospitalization than the comparable non‐elderly. The percentage of the patients taking anticoagulant drugs was significantly higher among the elderly. Of the patients on anticoagulant therapy, the duration of hospitalization tended to be longer in the elderly but no significant difference was found. None of the non‐elderly with postoperative hemorrhage had received anticoagulant therapy. In the elderly with postoperative hemorrhage, 15.8% of the lesions were in those who had received anticoagulant therapy, indicating a significantly higher percentage of such lesions in the elderly group. Conclusion: We conclude that ESD is useful in elderly patients because there is a similar risk as for the non‐elderly if the approach is individualized, and the following are taken into consideration when making the final decision of performing ESD in an elderly patient: patients should have a PS of 0, 1, or 2; determine whether or not anticoagulant therapy can be discontinued and whether or not treatment can be performed reliably without complications.

Background: Proton-pump inhibitors such as omeprazole are a standard treatment to prevent non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced upper gastrointestinal mucosal injuries. However, it is unclear which drugs may protect against all NSAID-induced digestive-tract injuries. Here, we compare the efficacy of the gastromucoprotective drug irsogladine with omeprazole in preventing NSAID-induced esophagitis, peptic ulcers, and small-intestinal mucosal injury in healthy subjects.Methods: Thirty-two healthy volunteers were assigned to an irsogladine group (Group I; n = 16) receiving diclofenac sodium 75 mg and irsogladine 4 mg daily for 14 days, or an omeprazole group (Group O; n = 16) receiving diclofenac sodium 75 mg and omeprazole 10 mg daily for 14 days. Esophagitis and peptic ulcers were evaluated by esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small-intestinal injuries by capsule endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, and fecal occult blood before and after treatment.Results: There was no significant difference between Group I and Group O with respect to the change in lesion score in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum before and after treatment.NSAID treatment significantly increased the number of small intestinal mucosal breaks per subject by capsule endoscopic evaluation, from a basal level of 0.1 ± 0.3 up to 1.9 ± 2.0 lesions in Group O (p = 0.0002). In contrast, there were no significant changes in the mean number of mucosal breaks before and after co-treatment in Group I (0.3 ± 0.8 to 0.5 ± 0.7, p = 0.62), and the between-group difference was significant (p = 0.0040). Fecal calprotectin concentration, when the concentration before treatment was defined as 1, was significantly increased both in Group O (from 1.0 ± 0.0 to 18.1 ± 37.1, p = 0.0002) and Group I (from 1.0 ± 0.0 to 6.0 ± 11.1, p = 0.0280); the degree of increase in Group O was significantly higher compared with that in Group I (p<0.05). In addition, fecal occult blood levels increased significantly in Group O (p = 0.0018), but there was no change in Group I (p = 1.0), and the between-group difference was significant (p = 0.0031).Conclusion: Irsogladine protected against NSAID-induced mucosal injuries throughout the gastrointestinal tract, from esophagus to small intestine, significantly better than omeprazole.Trial registration: This study was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (Registry ID number;UMIN000008114)