| Literature DB >> 29512923 |
Sara Franceschelli1, Daniela Maria Pia Gatta1, Mirko Pesce2, Alessio Ferrone1, Giuseppe Di Martino3, Marta Di Nicola3, Maria Anna De Lutiis1, Ester Vitacolonna1, Antonia Patruno1, Alfredo Grilli2, Mario Felaco1, Lorenza Speranza1.
Abstract
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a clinical condition characterized by reflux of gastroduodenal contents in the oesophagus, has proved to demonstrate a strong link between oxidative stress and the development of GERD. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been universally accepted as first-line therapy for management of GERD. The potential benefits of electrolysed reduced water (ERW), rich in molecular hydrogen, in improving symptoms and systemic oxidative stress associated with GERD was assessed. The study was performed on 84 GERD patients undergoing control treatment (PPI + tap water) or experimental treatment (PPI + ERW) for 3 months. These patients were subjected to the GERD-Health Related Quality of Life Questionnaire as well as derivatives reactive oxigen metabolites (d-ROMs) test, biological antioxidant potential (BAP) test, superoxide anion, nitric oxide and malondialdehyde assays, which were all performed as a proxy for the oxidative/nitrosative stress and the antioxidant potential status. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between scores and laboratory parameters. Overall results demonstrated that an optimal oxidative balance can be restored and GERD symptoms can be reduced rapidly via the integration of ERW in GERD patients. The relative variation of heartburn and regurgitation score was significantly correlated with laboratory parameters. Thus, in the selected patients, combination treatment with PPI and ERW improves the cellular redox state leading to the improvement of the quality of life as demonstrated by the correlation analysis between laboratory parameters and GERD symptoms.Entities:
Keywords: electrolysed reduced water; gastroesophageal reflux disease; molecular hydrogen; nitric oxide; oxidative stress; proton pump inhibitors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29512923 PMCID: PMC5908129 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.13569
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
Figure 1Flow diagram of patient selection
Differences in scores variation expressed as median and interquartile range
| Baseline | Post‐treatment | Relative variation |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TS Item GERD | |||||
| CG | 63.0 (53.8; 71.0) | 38.0 (30.0; 46.0) | −0.4 (−0.5; −0.2) |
|
|
| EG | 56.5 (47.3; 64.8) | 27.5 (19.5; 37.8) | −0.5 (−0.7; −0.4) | ||
| HS | |||||
| CG | 25.0 (20.3; 27.0) | 15.0 (12.0; 19.0) | −0.4 (−0.5; −0.2) |
|
|
| EG | 23.5 (20.0; 26.0) | 7.0 (4.0; 12.0) | −0.7 (−0.9; −0.5) | ||
| RS | |||||
| CG | 25.0 (21.3; 27.0) | 15.5 (12.0; 18.0) | −0.4 (−0.5; −0.3) |
|
|
| EG | 25.0 (21.3; 28.0) | 7.5 (4.0; 11.0) | −0.7 (−0.8; −0.5) | ||
CG, control group (PPI + TAP water); EG, experimental group (PPI + ERW); TS, total score; HS, heartburn score; RS, regurgitation score; ERW, electrolysed reduced water; PPI, proton pump inhibitors.
Effect of time assessed by Friedman's test.
Differences between PPI and PPI + ERW therapy group assessed by Mann‐Whitney U‐test.
Bolded P‐values are significant after FDR correction.
ANOVA for repeated measures performed to evaluate pre‐ and post‐therapy parameters between PPI + TAP water (CG) and PPI + ERW (EG) therapy group
| Baseline | Post‐treatment |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRP (mg/L) | |||||
| CG | 2.3 ± 2.2 | 1.6 ± 1.6 |
| .839 | .455 |
| EG | 2.2 ± 1.6 | 1.4 ± 1.1 | |||
| NO (nmol/mL/106 cells) | |||||
| CG | 59.3 ± 13.6 | 57.2 ± 12.9 |
|
|
|
| EG | 64.2 ± 11.3 | 41.1 ± 14.9 | |||
| MDA(pg/mL) | |||||
| CG | 190.3 ± 106.8 | 203.0 ± 112.0 |
| .084 |
|
| EG | 196.6 ± 135.4 | 117.9 ± 91.6 | |||
| d‐ROMs test (U‐CARR) | |||||
| CG | 385.1 ± 86.4 | 380.9 ± 71.6 |
| .062 |
|
| EG | 403.0 ± 134.9 | 292.2 ± 89.2 | |||
| Biological antioxidant potential test (μEq/L) | |||||
| CG | 839.2 ± 441.2 | 798.1 ± 339.3 |
|
|
|
| EG | 855.1 ± 444.9 | 1796.7 ± 467.2 | |||
| O2 − (nmol/mL) | |||||
| CG | 83.53 ± 21.00 | 78.1 ± 14.3 |
| .218 |
|
| EG | 95.8 ± 28.2 | 57.1 ± 21.2 | |||
CG, control group; EG, experimental group; CRP, C‐reactive protein; NO, nitric oxide; MDA, malondialdehyde; O2 −, superoxide anion; d‐ROMs, derivatives reactive oxygen metabolites; ERW, electrolysed reduced water; PPI, proton pump inhibitors.
Bolded P‐values are significant after FDR correction.
Probability that effect on the addressed variable is influenced by: *period. For each variable, the differences have been tested between the means of each period of the 2 groups (CG and EG); **groups. For each variable, the differences have been tested between the means of PPI group in 2 time (Baseline and post‐treatment) and the means of the EG group in 2 time; ***probability that the effects of period is greater in one distinct group (interaction period × group).
Difference in d‐ROMs and biological antioxidant potential (BAP) test measurements between CG (PPI + Tap Water) and EG (PPI + ERW) group
| Baseline | Post‐treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CG n (%) | EG n (%) | χ2
| CG n (%) | EG n (%) | χ2
| |
| d‐ROMs test ( | ||||||
| <300 | 8 (20.0) | 9 (20.5) | .290 | 4 (10.0) | 23 (53.5) |
|
| 300‐320 | 3 (7.5) | 3 (6.8) | 3 (7.5) | 3 (7.0) | ||
| 321‐340 | 2 (5.0) | 5 (11.4) | 5 (12.59 | 5 (11.6) | ||
| 341‐400 | 12 (30.0) | 6 (13.6) | 13 (32.5) | 9 (20.9) | ||
| 401‐500 | 12 (3.0) | 12 (27.3) | 14 (35.5) | 1 (2.3) | ||
| >500 | 3 (7.5) | 9 (20.5) | 1 (2.5) | 2 (4.7) | ||
| BAP test (μEq/L) | ||||||
| ≥2200 | 0 | 0 | .393 | 0 | 10 (23.3) |
|
| 2200‐2001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 (9.3) | ||
| 2000‐1801 | 3 (7.5) | 3 (6.8) | 0 | 9 (20.9) | ||
| 1800‐1601 | 0 | 0 | 1 (2.5) | 8 (18.6) | ||
| 1600‐1401 | 0 | 2 (4.5) | 2 (5.0) | 3 (7.0) | ||
| ≤1400 | 37 (92.5) | 39 (88.6) | 37 (92.5) | 9 (20.9) | ||
CG, control group; EG, experimental group; d‐ROMs, derivatives reactive oxygen metabolites; ERW, electrolysed reduced water; PPI, proton pump inhibitors.
χ2 P‐value = Chi‐squared test. p value < 0,05 are considerated statistically significant.
Spearman's correlation coefficient assessed to evaluate correlation among scores relatives variation and laboratory parameters relative variation
| TS | HS | RS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRP (mg/L) | |||
| ρ | .245 | .092 | .088 |
|
|
| .407 | .424 |
| NO (μmol/L/106 cells) | |||
| ρ | .341 | .384 | .423 |
|
|
|
|
|
| MDA(pg/mL) | |||
| ρ | .469 | .363 | .344 |
|
|
|
|
|
| d‐ROMs test (U‐CARR) | |||
| ρ | .414 | .371 | .310 |
|
|
|
|
|
| BAP test (μEq/L) | |||
| ρ | −.170 | −.439 | −.505 |
|
| .123 |
|
|
| O2 − (nmol/mL) | |||
| ρ | .398 | .350 | .294 |
|
|
|
|
|
CRP, C‐reactive protein; NO, nitric oxide; MDA, malondialdehyde; O2 −, superoxide anion; TS, total score; HS, heartburn score; RS, regurgitation score; BAP, biological antioxidant potential.
Bolded P‐values are significant after FDR correction.