A Prospective, Multicentric, Post Marketing Surveillance to Evaluate Efficacy & Safety of Ranitidine HCl (150 & 300 mg IR/CR) in Indian Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (PROGRADE)
- 1 Department of Gastroenterology, Gastro Universe, Mumbai, India
- 2 Department of Medicine, Ajanta Research Centre, Ajanta Hospital & IVF Centre, Lucknow, India
- 3 Departmentof Nephrology, Sanjeevani Kidney Care, Mumbai, India
- 4 Department of Gastroenterology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
- 5 Department of Rheumatology, Wockhardt Hospitals, Mumbai, India
- 6 Department of Gastroenterology, Rajalakshmi Hospital and Research Center, Bangalore, India
- 7 Department of General Surgery, SaiKripa Hospital, Mumbai, India
- 8 Department of Gastroenterology, Sparsh Child Care and Gastro Centre, Lucknow, India
- 9 Department of Clinical Research, Mediclin Clinical Research, Mumbai, India
- 10 Department of Medical Affairs, JB Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai, India
- 11 Department of Medical Affairs, JB Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai, India
- 12 Department of Medical Affairs, JB Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai, India
- 13 Department of Medical Affairs, JB Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai, India
Abstract
Purpose: Ranitidine hydrochloride (HCl) remains an important medication for treating acid-peptic ailments such as Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The main objective of this Post Marketing Surveillance (PMS) clinical study was to test the efficacy and safety of Ranitidine HCl in Indian patients suffering from GERD. Patients and Methods: Data of 2446 patients (1307 males; 1121 females) from 21 centers across India were analyzed. Patients received either of the three treatments: Ranitidine HCl 150 mg twice a day (BID) (ARM-A), Ranitidine HCl 300 mg once daily (OD) or BID (ARM-B), and Ranitidine HCl 300 mg OD (ARM-C). Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS) score and Heartburn Severity score were used to assess the drug’s efficacy. The adverse events reported by patients or investigators were analyzed to assess the safety profile of Ranitidine. Results: Of the 2446 subjects screened, 2428 were enrolled. There was a significant reduction in GSAS scores from baseline to the end of the study visit in all three ARMs. The GSAS scores reduced from 2.02 to 0.23 in ARM-A, 2.01 to 0.24 in ARM-B, and 2.07 to 0.26 in ARM-C patients. In ARM A, 72.82% had 24 hours heartburn-free days, and 66.89% had 7 consecutive heartburn-free days, which was more significant than the other two ARMs. 128 (5.27%) patients reported ADRs due to Ranitidine HCl at different doses. The most frequently reported ADR was constipation (17.18%), followed by oliguria (14.06%), cold (13.28%), and dysuria (12.5%). Of 128 ADRs, 113 (88.28%) were mild, and only 11 (8.59%) ADRs were related to the study drug. No severe ADRs were reported during the study. Conclusion: Ranitidine HCl 150/300 mg tablet was found to be an effective and safe H2-receptor antagonist for treating GERD in Indian Patients.
- Newberry, C. and Lynch, K. (2019) The Role of Diet in the Development and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Why We Feel the Burn. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 11, S1594-S1601. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.06.42
- Jadcherla, S.R. (2017) Pathophysiology of Gastroesophageal Reflux. In: Polin, R.A., et al., Eds., Fetal and Neonatal Physiology, Volume 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1643-1652.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-35214-7.00162-1
- Boulton, K.H.A. and Dettmar, P.W. (2021) A Narrative Review of the Prevalence of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD). Annals of Esophagus, 5, Article No. 7. https://doi.org/10.21037/aoe-2020-ebmg-03
- Chait, M.M. (2010) Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Important Considerations for the Older Patients. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2, 388-396. https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v2.i12.388
- Mastracci, L., Grillo, F., Parente, P., et al. (2020) Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease and Barrett’s Esophagus: An Overview with an Histologic Diagnostic Approach. Pathologica, 112, 117-127. https://doi.org/10.32074/1591-951X-162
- Satapathy, T. and Panda, P.K. (2013) Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Therapy. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, 6, 130-136.
- Trukhmanov, A.S. (2011) Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Terapevticheskii Arkhiv, 83, 44-88.
- Kamboj, A.K., Katzka, D.A. and Iyer, P.G. (2021) Endoscopic Screening for Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Rationale, Candidates, and Challenges. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America, 31, 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2020.08.002
- Daly, M.J., Humphray, J.M., Bunce, K.T. and Stables, R. (1981) The Effect of Ranitidine on Gastric Acid Secretory Response Curves to Histamine, Pentagastrin or Bethanechol in the Dog with a Heidenhain Pouch. Agents and Actions, 11, 160-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01991489
- Hotz, J., Plein, K. and Bunke, R. (1994) The Effectiveness of Ranitidine in Non-Ulcer Dyspepsia (Functional Dyspepsia) in Comparison with an Antacid. Medizinische Klinik (Munich), 89, 73-80, 107.
- Grant, S.M., Langtry, H.D. and Brogden, R.N. (1989) Ranitidine. An Updated Review of Its Pharmacodynamic and Pharmacokinetic Properties and Therapeutic Use in Peptic Ulcer Disease and Other Allied Diseases. Drugs, 37, 801-870. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-198937060-00003