Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John F Johanson

Publications and source records attributed to John F Johanson.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is commonly used to screen for neoplasia. To assess the performance of screening colonoscopy in everyday practice, we conducted a study of the rates of detection of adenomas and the amount of time taken to withdraw the colonoscope among endoscopists in a large community-based practice. METHODS: During a 15-month period, 12 experienced gastroenterologists performed 7882 colonoscopies, of which 2053 were screening examinations in subjects who had not previously undergone colonoscopy. We recorded the numbers, sizes, and histologic features of the neoplastic lesions detected during screening, as well as the duration of insertion and of withdrawal of the colonoscope during the procedure. We compared rates of detection of neoplastic lesions among gastroenterologists who had mean colonoscopic withdrawal times of less than 6 minutes with the rates of those who had mean withdrawal times of 6 minutes or more. According to experts, 6 minutes is the minimum length of time to allow adequate inspection during instrument withdrawal. RESULTS: Neoplastic lesions (mostly adenomatous polyps) were detected in 23.5% of screened subjects. There were large differences among gastroenterologists in the rates of detection of adenomas (range of the mean number of lesions per subject screened, 0.10 to 1.05; range of the percentage of subjects with adenomas, 9.4 to 32.7%) and in their times of withdrawal of the colonoscope from the cecum to the anus (range, 3.1 to 16.8 minutes for procedures during which no polyps were removed). As compared with colonoscopists with mean withdrawal times of less than 6 minutes, those with mean withdrawal times of 6 minutes or more had higher rates of detection of any neoplasia (28.3% vs. 11.8%, P<0.001) and of advanced neoplasia (6.4% vs. 2.6%, P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In this large community-based gastroenterology practice, we observed greater rates of detection of adenomas among endoscopists who had longer mean times for withdrawal of the colonoscope. The effect of variation in withdrawal times on lesion detection and the prevention of colorectal cancer in the context of widespread colonoscopic screening is not known. Ours was a preliminary study, so the generalizability and implications for clinical practice need to be determined by future studies.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2006

Efficacy of tegaserod in chronic constipation in men.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic constipation/idiopathic constipation is highly prevalent in western countries and traditional treatments are suboptimal. This multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and safety of tegaserod, a selective 5-HT(4) agonist and promotility agent, in men with chronic constipation. METHODS: After screening and baseline phases, men with chronic constipation were randomized to receive either tegaserod 6 mg twice daily or placebo in a double-blind manner for 12 wk. Patients recorded symptoms using a diary. Primary efficacy variable was the response rate for an increase in complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) during the first 4 wk of double-blind treatment. Other efficacy measures included patient assessment of symptoms and satisfaction with symptom relief. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 322 patients were randomized to tegaserod (N = 158) or placebo (N = 164). Increases of at least one CSBM per wk during the first 4 wk of treatment observed for tegaserod compared with placebo (40.5%vs 29.3%, P= 0.03) were sustained throughout the 12-wk treatment period. Response rate for CSBM was also superior for tegaserod (P= 0.04 vs placebo) over the treatment period. Benefits for tegaserod over placebo were also observed for some secondary efficacy variables, however, statistical significance was not achieved at all weeks. Frequency of adverse events was similar with tegaserod and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Tegaserod 6 mg twice daily was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of chronic constipation in men. Tegaserod provided rapid relief of constipation within 1 wk and the effects were sustained for up to 12 wk.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

Maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis: a randomized six-month comparison of esomeprazole twenty milligrams with lansoprazole fifteen milligrams.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim was to compare esomeprazole with lansoprazole for the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis and resolution of gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms in a United States population. METHODS: Patients who entered this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, maintenance trial had been treated and healed (no endoscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis) with esomeprazole 40 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg once daily (patients with Los Angeles grades C and D erosive esophagitis at baseline) or esomeprazole 40 mg (patients with Los Angeles grades A and B erosive esophagitis at baseline) and had no heartburn or acid regurgitation symptoms during the previous week. Patients were randomized to maintenance once-daily therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg (n = 512) or lansoprazole 15 mg (n = 514) for up to 6 months. Esophago-gastroduodenoscopies were done at months 3 and 6, and investigators assessed symptom severity at months 1, 3, and 6. Endoscopic/symptomatic remission was defined as no erosive esophagitis and no study withdrawal as a result of reflux symptoms. RESULTS: The estimated endoscopic/symptomatic remission rate during a period of 6 months was significantly higher (P = .0007) for patients who received esomeprazole 20 mg once daily (84.8%) compared with those who received lansoprazole 15 mg (75.9%). Most patients had no heartburn (383/462 and 369/466) or acid regurgitation (401/462 and 400/466) symptoms at 6 months, and there were no significant differences between treatments. Both treatments were well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole 20 mg is more effective than lansoprazole 15 mg in maintaining endoscopic/symptomatic remission in patients with healed erosive esophagitis.

2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles↗
PubMed2006

Fiber for the treatment of hemorrhoids complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of laxatives on a wide range of symptoms in patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids. METHODS: We searched using the following sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL, BIOSIS, AMED, Papers First and Proceedings; study authors, industry, and experts in the field. We included all published and unpublished parallel group randomized controlled trials comparing any type of laxative to placebo or no therapy in patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, retrieved all potentially relevant studies, and extracted data on study population, intervention, prespecified outcomes, and methodology. RESULTS: Seven trials randomized 378 patients to fiber or a nonfiber control. Studies were of moderate quality for most outcomes. Meta-analyses using random effects models suggested that fiber has an apparent beneficial effect. The risk of not improving/persisting symptoms decreased by 47% in the fiber group (RR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.73) and the risk of bleeding by 50% (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.89). Studies with multiple follow-ups, usually at 6 wk and at 3 months, showed consistent results over time. Results are also compatible with large treatment effects in prolapse, pain, and itching, but even in the pooled analyses confidence intervals were wide and compatible with no effect (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.37-1.67; RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.07-1.65; and RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.24-2.10, respectively). One study suggested a decrease in recurrence. Results showed a nonsignificant trend toward increases in mild adverse events in the fiber group (RR = 6.0, 95% CI 0.57-64.8). CONCLUSIONS: Trials of fiber show a consistent beneficial effect for symptoms and bleeding in the treatment of symptomatic hemorrhoids.

Constipation↗
PubMed2005

Healing of gastric ulcers with esomeprazole versus ranitidine in patients who continued to receive NSAID therapy: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare orally administered esomeprazole 40 mg once daily and 20 mg once daily with ranitidine 150 mg twice daily for the healing of gastric ulcers (GUs) during 8 wks in patients who continued to receive daily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial included patients who were receiving nonselective or cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2)-selective NSAIDs and had at least one GU >or=5 mm but no gastric or duodenal ulcer >25 mm in diameter at the baseline esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). After 4 and 8 wks of treatment, ulcer-healing status was confirmed by EGD. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each treatment group who had no GUs (GU healing rate) at week 8. RESULTS: A total of 406 patients were randomized to treatment. At week 8, GU healing rates with esomeprazole 40 and 20 mg were 91.5% (118/129; 95% CI, 86.7-96.3%) and 88.4% (122/138; 95% CI, 83.1-93.7%), respectively, and were significantly higher than the 74.2% rate (98/132; 95% CI, 66.8-81.7%) with ranitidine (p<0.01 for both comparisons). GU healing rates at 4 wks (78.3%[101/129] and 79.0%[109/138] in the esomeprazole 40- and 20-mg groups, respectively) were also significantly higher (p<0.05) than in the ranitidine group (66.7%[88/132]). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole 40 and 20 mg once daily are effective and well-tolerated therapies compared with ranitidine 150 mg twice daily for healing GUs in patients who need to continue NSAID therapy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Effect of tegaserod in chronic constipation: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic constipation is a common gastrointestinal disorder. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of tegaserod, a serotonin subtype 4 receptor partial agonist in patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After a 2-week baseline, patients received tegaserod 2 mg twice daily (n = 450), tegaserod 6 mg twice daily (n = 451), or placebo (n = 447) for 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week withdrawal period. Responders were those patients having been treated for at least 7 days with an increase of > or =1 complete spontaneous bowel movement/week vs. baseline during weeks 1-4 (primary variable) and weeks 1-12 (secondary variable). Other secondary variables included patient assessment of constipation symptoms (number of bowel movements, stool form, abdominal bloating/distention, straining, and abdominal pain/discomfort), and global assessment of constipation and bowel habits. RESULTS: Responder rates for complete spontaneous bowel movement during weeks 1-4 were significantly greater ( P < 0.0001) in the tegaserod 2 mg twice daily (41.4%) and 6 mg twice daily groups (43.2%) vs. placebo (25.1%). This effect was maintained over 12 weeks. Statistically significant improvements over placebo were observed across the majority of secondary variables for both tegaserod doses. No rebound effect was observed after treatment withdrawal. Tegaserod was well tolerated; headache and nasopharyngitis, the most frequent adverse events, were more common in the placebo group than in either tegaserod group. CONCLUSIONS: Over 12 weeks, tegaserod treatment produced significant improvements in chronic constipation symptoms and was also safe and well tolerated.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2004

Epidemiology of constipation in North America: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the published literature regarding prevalence, risk factors, incidence, natural history, and the effect on quality of life of constipation in North America. METHODS: A computer-assisted search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents databases was performed independently by two investigators. Study selection criteria included the following: (1) North American population-based sample of adults with constipation; (2) publication in full manuscript form in English; and (3) report on the prevalence, incidence, and natural history of constipation or impact of constipation on quality of life. Eligible articles were reviewed in a duplicate, independent manner. Data extracted were compiled in tables and presented in descriptive form. RESULTS: The estimates of the prevalence of constipation in North America ranged from 1.9% to 27.2%, with most estimates from 12% to 19%. Prevalence estimates by gender support a female-to-male ratio of 2.2:1. Constipation appears to increase with increasing age, particularly after age 65. No true population-based incidence studies or natural history studies were identified. In one cohort, 89% of patients with constipation still reported constipation at 14.7 months follow-up. From limited data, quality of life appears to be diminished by constipation, but the clinical significance of this is unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Constipation is very common, as approximately 63 million people in North America meet the Rome II criteria for constipation. Minimal data are available regarding incidence, natural history, and quality of life in patients with constipation. Effort should be expended toward the study of these topics, particularly in the elderly, who are disproportionately affected by this condition.

Constipation↗
PubMed2003

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal↗