PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

E E Giefer

Publications and source records attributed to E E Giefer.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

An evaluation of increasing doses of ranitidine for treatment of heartburn.

BACKGROUND: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, parallel group, dose-ranging trial of ranitidine tablets for relief of episodic heartburn. Adult out-patients who reported heartburn relieved by antacids at least seven times per week were eligible. METHODS: Patients who successfully completed a 1-week single-blind placebo run-in phase and who did not achieve adequate relief in more than 50% of heartburn episodes were randomized to a 1-week, double-blind treatment phase during which they received ranitidine doses of 25, 75 or 125 mg, or placebo. RESULTS: Of 577 patients randomized, 566 had at least one evaluable heartburn episode and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. All three ranitidine doses were statistically significantly superior to placebo in providing overall episodic heartburn relief for the first episode (P < 0.002), last episode (P</=0.004), and all episodes combined (P < 0.001). The ranitidine 75 mg and 125 mg doses provided sustained relief (relief within 60 min of dosing that lasted throughout the 4-h evaluation period) to a greater proportion of patients for each individual episode (43-56% for 75 mg and 42-57% for 125 mg) than the ranitidine 25 mg dose (35-50%) or placebo (21-29%). The incidence of adverse events was similar in all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: All three ranitidine doses (125, 75 and 25 mg) are safe and superior to placebo in providing adequate relief for heartburn. Ranitidine's onset of relief was progressive and clearly present by 30 min as shown by statistically significant differences for the 75 mg dose when compared to placebo. Similarly, patients treated with ranitidine 75 mg and 125 mg consumed statistically fewer rescue antacids than placebo-treated patients for the first episode. All three doses were well tolerated, with adverse event profiles similar to those of placebo.

Adult↗

Low-dose ranitidine for the relief of heartburn.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of adults in the USA suffer from heartburn or related symptoms monthly; more than 20% of these sufferers experience heartburn at least once per day. Although many rely on self-medication with antacids for the relief of their symptoms, treatments that decrease gastric volume as well as increase the pH of refluxed material should be more effective in relieving heartburn. AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of low-dose regimens of ranitidine for the relief of heartburn. METHODS: Adults with at least a 3-month history of heartburn were eligible for this randomized, double-blind, parallel group, multicentre dose-ranging study. Following a 1-week open-label run-in phase to document baseline heartburn frequency, subjects were randomized to receive treatment with one tablet of either ranitidine 75 mg (n = 491), ranitidine 25 mg (n = 504), or placebo (n = 494), to be taken as needed up to four times daily for 2 weeks for the relief of heartburn. RESULTS: The ranitidine 75 mg regimen was clinically (> 10 percentage points) and statistically (P < 0.05) significantly more effective than placebo for all measured efficacy end-points in relieving heartburn and reducing antacid consumption. In addition, the ranitidine 75 mg regimen was superior to placebo in providing heartburn relief within 30 min of dosing that lasted for up to 12 h. Ranitidine 25 mg was observed to be statistically superior (P < 0.05) but not clinically different from placebo, as defined a priori, in providing heartburn relief. All treatments were well tolerated and adverse events occurred no more frequently with the ranitidine regimens than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Ranitidine 75 mg provides prompt relief of heartburn that lasts for up to 12 h and has a safety profile comparable to that of placebo.

Adolescent↗

A model for planning health care in patients with end-stage renal disease.

Treatment modalities of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients include in-center dialysis, home dialysis, and kidney transplant. We present a model to account for all aspects of modality use to aid in planning regional facilities. Five years of data for 979 patients on dialysis in Wisconsin between 1970 and 1975 are used. The model shows movement (transit probabilities) from one modality to another, eg, transition from in-center dialysis to transplantation, and data were used to derive all transitional probabilities characterizing patient movement from one modality to another. Model and probabilities were used to predict number of patients in each modality in 1976, and the model was used to predict number of patients in each treatment modality through 1990. These figures may be used for planning regional facilities. Extrapolation of this model and derived probabilities for nationwide projections may be possible.

Adolescent↗

The "healthy worker effect"--fact or artifact?

Workers in five chemical plants with diverse characteristics were studied by attempting to locate all white male employees who worked at least 12 months over a 25 to 30 year period. Former employees were contacted directly, rather than using questionnaires or Social Security Administration files. The data were analyzed by comparing observed mortality to expected mortality based on age-sex-race specific death rates in the U.S. population. The results indicate that the mortality experience of the chemical workers studied is essentially that of the general population. It is suggested that the "healthy worker effect" may be due to methods frequently employed in searching for death claims which understate the true experience of the employee group studied, or if present, does not affect mortality rates for neoplastic or cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular Diseases↗

A comparison of two methods for calculating expected mortality.

A number of statistics based on person-years of survival have use in mortality studies. However, calculation of an expected number of deaths based on person-years of survival and standard death rates cannot be justified. We derive a new method to estimate expected mortality based on a model which assumes that each individual contributes to expected mortality from the time he enters the study until the study ends, regardless of whether he dies during the study. This model shows that what is referred to as expected mortality in the person-years method is a biased estimate of expected mortality. The variance of observed mortality under this new model is substantially less than the variance commonly used with the person-years method.

Analysis of Variance↗