{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044213263979193757, 'fraction_numerical': 0.045513654096228866, 'mean_word_length': 4.457446808510638, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cisapride and cimetidine in the treatment of erosive esophagitis.

The efficacy of cisapride, as compared with cimetidine, in the treatment of erosive esophagitis was studied in a double-blind trial. One hundred and twenty-nine patients were assigned to one of four dosage schedules: cisapride 10 mg b.i.d. (20 mg group) or q.i.d. (40 mg group), or cimetidine 400 mg b.i.d. (800 mg group) or q.i.d. (1600 mg group). Treatment lasted 8 to 12 weeks. The degree of esophagitis and the severity of diurnal and nocturnal heartburn and regurgitation were significantly (p less than 0.01) reduced in the four treatment groups. Endoscopy did not show any significant differences among the four groups, although cisapride tended to be more effective in moderate to severe esophagitis, in which cases mucosal healing (i.e. absence of erosions and ulcers) was observed in 69%, 64%, 55% and 55% of the patients treated with cisapride 40 mg, cisapride 20 mg, cimetidine 1600 mg and cimetidine 800 mg. Improvement in reflux symptoms in the two cisapride groups was not significantly different from that in the cimetidine 1600 mg group, but was better (p less than 0.05) than that in the cimetidine 800 mg patients. The severity score for all reflux symptoms had decreased by 79%, 74% (cisapride 40 mg and 20 mg), 69% and 57% (cimetidine 1600 mg and 800 mg) by the end of treatment. These results show that cisapride is at least as effective as acid-suppressing therapy in patients with reflux esophagitis, and is therefore a valuable alternative to it.