PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15703599

Gastric secretion.

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gastric acid facilitates the digestion of protein and the absorption of iron, calcium, and vitamin B12. It also protects against bacterial overgrowth and enteric infection, including prion disease. When homeostatic mechanisms malfunction, the volume and concentration of acid may overwhelm mucosal defense mechanisms, leading to duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. This article reviews recent knowledge contributing to understanding of the regulation of gastric acid secretion at the central, peripheral, and intracellular levels. RECENT FINDINGS: The vagus nerve contains afferent fibers that transmit sensory information from the stomach to the nucleus of the solitary tract. Input from the nucleus of the solitary tract is relayed to vagal efferent neurons that originate from two brain stem nuclei: the nucleus ambiguus and the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus. The latter is also influenced by thyrotropin-releasing hormone neurons that act centrally to stimulate acid secretion. The main peripheral stimulants of acid secretion are the hormone gastrin and the paracrine amine histamine. Gastrin stimulates acid secretion directly and, more importantly, indirectly by releasing histamine from fundic enterochromaffin-like cells. Gastrin also exerts trophic effects on various tissues, including the gastric and intestinal mucosa. The main inhibitor of acid secretion is somatostatin. Somatostatin, acting via ssTR2 receptors, exerts a tonic paracrine inhibitory influence on the secretion of gastrin, histamine, and acid secretion. Calcitonin gene-related peptide, adrenomedullin, amylin, atrial natriuretic peptide, and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide all stimulate somatostatin secretion and thus inhibit acid secretion. HK-ATPase, the proton pump of the parietal cell, is stored within cytoplasmic tubulovesicles during the resting state, but during stimulation, it is shuttled to the canalicular membrane by a poorly understood mechanism that probably involves soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptor proteins. The proton pump inhibitor, pantoprazole, is unique in that it binds cysteine 822, located deep within the membrane domain of the alpha-subunit. The difficulty that reducing agents, such as glutathione, have in reaching cysteine 822 may be responsible for the longer half-time for acid recovery observed with pantoprazole. Hypergastrinemia, induced by proton pump inhibitors, enhances expression of cyclooxygenase-2 and hence prostaglandins within parietal cells, a feedback pathway that may protect the stomach against acid-induced damage. SUMMARY: In the past year, significant advances have been made in understanding of the regulation of gastric acid secretion. Ultimately, these advances should lead to improved therapies to prevent and treat acid-related disorders. Gastric acid secretion must be precisely controlled at a variety of levels to prevent disease caused by hyperchlorhydria and hypochlorhydria. The mechanisms include neural (central and peripheral), hormonal, paracrine, and intracellular pathways that operate in concert to switch acid secretion on during ingestion of a meal and off during the interdigestive period. A better understanding of the physiology of acid secretion in health and disease should eventually lead to improved therapies to prevent and treat acid-related disorders.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mitchell L Schubert. 2003. Gastric secretion.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001574-200311000-00002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗