1). None of the patient characteristics was significantly different between the

two groups, except a significantly younger age in Group T (Table 2). There was no occurrence of peptic ulcer in either group, and no discontinuation of the study because of gastrointestinal bleeding. Regarding the change in Lanza score, in group F the score improved significantly from 0.89 ± 1.03 [mean ± standard deviation (SD)] before medication to 0.39 ± 0.75 (mean ± SD) after medication (P = 0.006). In group T, no significant difference was observed premedcation (0.75 ± 0.93) or post-medication (0.68 ± 0.82) (P = 0.805) (Table 3). There was a significant difference in the magnitude of the AZD3965 in vivo change in Lanza score between group F (−0.5 ± 0.98, mean ± SD) and group T (−0.07 ± 0.90) (P = 0.045). The median of Lanza sore did not have the significant difference in group Ivacaftor mw F (before administration 0.5 after administration 0) and group T (before administration 0.5 after administration 0) (Fig. 2). When we analyzed the change in Lanza score by the presence or absence of H. pylori infection, the score improved

significantly from 0.71 ± 0.99 (premedication) to 0.07 ± 0.27 (post-medication) in the H. pylori-positive group in group F (P = 0.031). In the H. pylori-negative group, the Lanza score decreased, although no significant difference was observed premedication (1.13 ± 1.06) or post-medication (0.53 ± 0.74) (P = 0.125). In group T, no change was observed premedication (0.64 ± 0.67) or post-medication Interleukin-3 receptor (0.64 ± 0.81) in the H. pylori-positive group (P > 0.999). In the H. pylori-negative group, the Lanza score decreased, although there was no significant difference premedication (1.00 ± 1.26) or post-medication (0.64 ± 0.81) (P = 0.500) (Table 4). On examination of the incidence of new, subjective gastrointestinal symptoms, there was no significant difference between group F (1 of 38 subjects, 2.6%) and group T (3 of 28 subjects, 10.7%) (P = 0.304). The observed subjective symptoms included heartburn (one subject) in group F, and in group T, stomatitis, chest discomfort, and an increase in gastrointestinal gas (one subject each). There was no abnormal

change in any laboratory test value for which an association with an adverse reaction and/or the study medication could not be ruled out (i.e. the safety endpoint). This is a landmark, prospective, controlled study that tested whether teprenone (a GP) exerts a substantial therapeutic effect on gastroduodenal mucosal injuries under use of LDA in comparison with famotidine (an H2RA). The results show a significant difference between famotidine and teprenone in the therapeutic effects against gastroduodenal mucosal injuries under use of LDA. In the FAMOUS Study conducted in Europe for the purpose of prevention of LDA-induced peptic ulcer,[18] 15.0% of the patients in the placebo group had a gastric ulcer and 8.5% had a duodenal ulcer, while in the famotidine group 3.