ClinicalTrials.gg
Enrolling by invitationNCT07707011Updated Jul 16, 2026

Potassium Competitive Acid Blocker (PCAB) Test-Guided vs Physiologic Test-Guided Treatment in Patients With Typical Reflux Symptoms

An interventional study of PCAB-test guided in GERD, Acid Reflux, Treatment, sponsored by Mahidol University. Enrolling by invitation at 1 site in Thailand. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 70 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-16.

Sponsored by Mahidol University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 3 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Mar 2026, registered Jun 2026).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
120
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 70 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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:

  • Is PCAB test-guided treatment as effective as physiologic test-guided treatment in improving reflux symptoms after 4 weeks?
  • How accurate is the PCAB test at detecting pathologic acid reflux compared with 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring?
  • What medical problems do participants have when receiving PCAB-, proton-pump inhibitor-, or neuromodulator-based treatment?
  • In this study, researchers will compare two strategies: one group will receive a 7-day course of vonoprazan (PCAB) as a diagnostic test and then treatment guided by the PCAB response, while the other group will undergo endoscopy and 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring with treatment guided by those results.

Participants will:

  • Be randomly assigned to either the PCAB test-guided group or the physiologic test-guided group
  • Take study medicines by mouth (such as vonoprazan, omeprazole, and/or nortriptyline or matching placebos) for about 4 weeks, depending on their test results and symptom type
  • Attend scheduled clinic visits for checkups, questionnaires, and safety monitoring
  • Keep a diary of their reflux symptoms, quality of life, and any use of rescue antacid medicine
Read the detailed description

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • GERD, Acid Reflux, Treatment

Keywords

  • GERD
  • Heartburn
  • Regurgitation
  • Non-cardiac chest pain
  • PCABs
03

In context

Gastroesophageal Reflux

1,211 studies on the registry are indexed under Gastroesophageal Reflux; 202 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 120 is above the median of 68 across 796 interventional studies indexed under Gastroesophageal Reflux.

Browse Gastroesophageal Reflux studies →

Lead sponsor

Mahidol University is the lead sponsor of 747 studies on the registry; 119 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 70 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age between 18 and 70 years.
  • Presence of specific gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms, including heartburn, regurgitation, and/or esophageal chest pain, occurring at least 4 times per week for more than 4 weeks prior to enrollment.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Presence of GERD complications, including esophageal stricture and/or Barrett's esophagus.
  • Concomitant symptoms that may interfere with GERD treatment, such as frequent belching or rumination syndrome.
  • History of gastric or duodenal ulcers.
  • History of upper gastrointestinal surgery (involving the esophagus, stomach, or small intestine).
  • Use of any of the following medications within 4 weeks prior to enrollment: aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), mucoprotective agents, prokinetics, or neuromodulators.
  • Use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs), or potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) within 2 weeks prior to enrollment. (Note: Patients may become eligible if they complete a minimum 2-week ).
  • Any for ambulatory esophageal reflux monitoring.
  • Known history of , allergy, or adverse reactions to the study medications: vonoprazan, omeprazole, or nortriptyline.
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Washout period

A planned gap after a treatment, so that its effects can lessen before the study treatment or a study assessment. Ask the study team and the doctor who prescribed it before changing any medicine.

Contraindication

A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.

Hypersensitivity

An allergy, or another reaction of the immune system, to a substance. “Hypersensitivity to the study drug” means a known allergic reaction to it — not every side effect a medicine can have.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Care provider)
Enrollment
120 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    PCAB-test guided

    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.

    Diagnostic Test: PCAB-test guided

  • No intervention
    Physiologic-test guided

    All patients assigned in Physiologic-test guided group will receive esophagodeuodenoscopy, 24-hr pH and impedance monitoring.

Interventions

  • Diagnostic testPCAB-test guided

    All participants in PCAB-test guided group will receive vonoprazan 20 mg orally twice daily for 7 days

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 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.

    Time frame: 4 weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline

  2. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline and at 4 weeks

  3. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline and at 4 weeks

  4. 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.

    Time frame: Up to 4 weeks

  5. 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.

    Time frame: Up to 4 weeks

  6. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline and at 4 weeks

  7. 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.

    Time frame: At 4 weeks

  8. 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.

    Time frame: Up to 4 weeks

  9. 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.

    Time frame: Up to 4 weeks

  10. 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.

    Time frame: Immediately after completion of diagnostic testing on Day 0

  11. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline

07

Study locations

1 site
08

References and documents

Publications

  • 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. PubMed 17198454 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 40419956 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 24750261 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 40471840 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 27287852 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 29739175 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 30595950 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 15068979 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 16167971 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 15142202 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 12562449 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 12352293 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 11495074 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 7654116 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 10527293 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 9489902 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 9892880 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 9362179 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 9649457 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 37734911 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 17245209 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 34980685 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 16700900 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 7766740 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 23926926 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 10566701 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 16011666 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 11280530 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 19136523 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 9178669 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 20535321 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 23992024 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 22309489 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 19210298 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 16928254 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — To protect participant confidentiality and comply with institutional and regulatory requirements, no IPD will be shared unless with reasonable request.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 16, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07707011
Lead sponsor
Mahidol University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jul 16, 2026
Start date
Mar 18, 2026
Primary completion
Mar 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Mar 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Jul 16, 2026

Study contacts

Monthira Maneerattanaporn, MD
principal investigator · Mahidol University
Somchai Leelakusolvong, MD
study chair · Mahidol University
Tanawat Geeratragool, MD
study chair · Mahidol University
Siwakan Phuetphaichit, MD
study chair · Mahidol University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion