Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 53, Issue 12, pp 3082–3094 | Cite as

It Is Possible to Classify Non-erosive Reflux Disease (NERD) Patients into Endoscopically Normal Groups and Minimal Change Groups by Subjective Symptoms and Responsiveness to Rabeprazole—A Report from a Study with Japanese Patients

  • Motoyasu Kusano
  • Naohito Shirai
  • Kanako Yamaguchi
  • Michio Hongo
  • Tsutomu Chiba
  • Yoshikazu Kinoshita
  • The Acid-Related Symptom (ARS) Research Group
Original Paper


The hypothesis that non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) patients comprise various subgroups is gaining popularity. This study was conducted to investigate the possibility of categorizing NERD patients according to symptom types and response to acid-suppressive drug rabeprazole (RPZ) 10 mg/day. NERD patients were classified as grade N (endoscopically normal), M (minimal change), or erosive GERD, and answered a 51-item, yes-or-no questionnaire pre and post-treatment. Compared to erosive GERD, clear differences existed in pretreatment prevalence of symptoms and responsiveness to RPZ in grades N and M; the results suggested stomachaches (especially at night) were significant symptoms in grade N and dysmotility-like symptoms like bloated stomach were significant in grade M while gastroesophageal reflux symptoms were significant in erosive GERD. Clinical significance of classifying NERD was indicated from different symptoms and responsiveness to PPI.


NERD Symptom Rabeprazole Minimal change Questionnaire 



The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Eisai Co., Ltd.


  1. 1.
    Dent J, Brun J, Fendrick A, Fennerty M, Janssens J, Kahrilas P, Lauritsen K, Reynolds J, Shaw M, Talley N, The Genval Workshop Group (1999) An evidence-based appraisal of reflux disease management—the Genval Workshop Report. Gut 44(Suppl 2):S1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R, Global Consensus Group (2006) The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 101:1900–1920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chiba N, De Gara CJ, Wilkinson JM, Hunt RH (1997) Speed of healing and symptom relief in grade II to IV gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta analysis. Gastroenterology 112:1798–1810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Pixteren B, Numans ME, Bonis PA, Lau J (2006) Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 19:CD002095Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tendler DA, Parker RA, Spechler SJ (1996) Heartburn: ethnic variations in prevalence and interpretation. Gastroenterology 110:A276Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fass R (2003) Epidemiology and pathophysiology of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 98(Suppl 3):S2–S7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bate CM, Green JR, Axon AT, Murray FE, Tildesley G, Emmas CE, Taylor MD (1997) Omeprazole is more effective than cimetidine for the relief of all grades of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-associated heartburn, irrespective of the presence or absence of endoscopic oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 11:755–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venables TL, Newland RD, Patel AC, Hole J, Wilcock C, Turbitt ML (1997) Omeprazole 10 milligrams once daily, Omeprazole 20 milligrams once daily, or ranitidine 150 milligrams twice daily, evaluated as initial therapy for the relief of symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-in general practice. Scand J Gastroenterol 32:765–773Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kusano M, Shimoyama Y, Sugimoto S, Kawamura O, Maeda M, Minashi K, Kuribayashi S, Higuchi T, Zai H, Ino K, Horikoshi T, Sugiyama T, Toki M, Ohwada T, Mori M (2004) Development and evaluation of FSSG; frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD. J Gastroenterol 39:888–891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adachi K, Matsumori Y, Fujisawa T, Kamada T, Kusaka M, Ohumi T, Iwakiri R, Yamaguchi K, Danjo A, Hori K, Tomita T, Hayashi T, Haruma K, Fujimoto K, Miwa H, Kinoshita Y (2006) Symptom diversity of patients with reflux esophagitis: effect of omeprazole treatment. J Clin Biochem Nutr 39:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahrilas PJ (2003) Diagnosis of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 98(Suppl 3):S15–S23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoshihara Y (2004) Endoscopic findings of GERD. Nippon Rinsho 62:1459–1464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakamura T, Shirakawa K, Masuyama H, Sugaya H, Hiraishi H, Terano A (2005) Minimal change oesophagitis: a disease with characteristic differences to erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 21:19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hongo M (2006) Minimal changes in reflux esophagitis: red ones and white ones. J Gastroenterol 41:95–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miner P, Orr W, Filippone J, Jokubaitis L, Sloan S (2002) Rabeprazole in nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 97:1332–1339Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fock KM, Teo EK, Ang TL, Chua TS, Ng TM, Tan YL (2005) Rabeprazole vs esomeprazole in non-erosive gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a randomized, double-blind study in urban Asia. World J Gastroenterol 11:3091–3098PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adachi K, Hashimoto T, Hamamoto N, Hirakawa K, Niigaki M, Miyake T, Taniura H, Ono M, Kaji T, Suetsugu H, Yagi J, Komazawa Y, Mihara T, Katsube T, Fujishiro H, Shizuku T, Hattori S, Yamamoto S, Kinoshita Y (2003) Symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis: comparative study of omeprazole, lansoprazole, and rabeprazole. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 18:1392–1398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robinson M, Fitzgerald S, Hegedus R, Murthy A, Jokubaitis L, FAST Trial Investigators (2002) Onset of symptom relief with rabeprazole: a community-based, open-label assessment of patients with erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 16:445–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holtmann G, Bytzer P, Metz M, Loeffler V, Blum AL (2002) A randomized, double-blind, comparative study of standard-dose rabeprazole and high-dose omeprazole in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 16:479–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fujiwara Y, Higuchi K, Shiba M, Yamamori K, Watanabe Y, Sasaki E, Tominaga K, Watanabe T, Oshitani N, Arakawa T (2005) Differences in clinical characteristics between patients with endoscopy-negative reflux disease and erosive esophagitis in Japan. Am J Gastroenterol 100:754–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Locke GR III, Talley NJ, Fett SL, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ III (1997) Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology 112:1448–1456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee KJ, Vos R, Janssens J, Tack J (2004) Influence of duodenal acidification on the sensorimotor function of the proximal stomach in humans. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 286:G278–G284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jones RH, Baxter G (1997) Lansoprazole 30 mg daily versus ranitidine 150 mg b.d. in the treatment of acid-related dyspepsia in general practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 11:541–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jones RH, Crouch SL (1999) Low-dose lansoprazole provides greater relief of heartburn and epigastric pain than low-dose omeprazole in patients with acid-related dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 13:413–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joh T, Miwa H, Higuchi K, Shimatani T, Manabe N, Adachi K, Wada T, Sasaki M, Fujiwara Y, Hongo M, Chiba T, Kinoshita Y, ARS Research Group (2007) Validity of endoscopic classification of nonerosive reflux disease. J Gastroenterol 42:444–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keohane J, Quigley EM (2006) Functional dyspepsia and non-erosive reflux disease: a review. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 52:261–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quigley EM (2004) Functional dyspepsia (FD) and non-erosive reflux disease (NERD): overlapping or discrete entities? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 18:695–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suzuki H, Nishizawa T, Hibi T (2006) Therapeutic strategies for functional dyspepsia and the introduction of the Rome III classification. J Gastroenterol 41:513–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, Holtmann G, Hu P, Malagelada JR, Stanghellini V (2006) Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology 130:1466–1479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shimoyama Y, Kusano M, Sugimoto S, Kawamura O, Maeda M, Minashi K, Kuribayashi S, Higuchi T, Zai H, Ino K, Horikoshi T, Moki F, Sugiyama T, Toki M, Ohwada T, Mori M (2005) Diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease using a new questionnaire. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 20:643–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Motoyasu Kusano
    • 1
  • Naohito Shirai
    • 2
  • Kanako Yamaguchi
    • 3
  • Michio Hongo
    • 4
  • Tsutomu Chiba
    • 5
  • Yoshikazu Kinoshita
    • 6
  • The Acid-Related Symptom (ARS) Research Group
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Endoscopy and Endoscopic SurgeryGunma University HospitalMaebashiJapan
  2. 2.Department of GastroenterologyEnshu HospitalHamamatsuJapan
  3. 3.Department of Internal MedicineSaga Medical SchoolSagaJapan
  4. 4.Departments of Comprehensive Medicine and Psychosomatic MedicineTohoku University HospitalSendaiJapan
  5. 5.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyKyoto University Graduate School of MedicineKyotoJapan
  6. 6.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyShimane University School of MedicineIzumoJapan
  7. 7.IzumoJapan

Personalised recommendations