Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jun 17;17(6):e0270252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270252

Trends in proton pump inhibitor use, reflux esophagitis, and various upper gastrointestinal symptoms from 2010 to 2019 in Japan

Nobutake Yamamichi 1,2,*, Takeshi Shimamoto 1,3, Yu Takahashi 2, Mami Takahashi 1, Chihiro Takeuchi 2, Ryoichi Wada 3, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro 2
Editor: Rasa Zarnegar4
PMCID: PMC9205527  PMID: 35714110

Abstract

The increasing usage of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has been reported worldwide, but information on PPI use in East Asia is inadequate. This study aimed to examine the trends in PPI use in Japan, along with the changes in histamine H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) use, disease rate of reflux esophagitis, and the prevalence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms. We analyzed 217,712 healthy subjects (127,607 men and 90,105 women; 51.4 ± 9.7 years old) participating in the health check program from 2010 to 2019. Various upper gastrointestinal symptoms were evaluated using the frequency scale for the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (FSSG) questionnaire. Reflux esophagitis was diagnosed by esophageal erosion using the Los Angeles classification grades A, B, C, and D. From 2010 to 2019, the percentage of PPI users increased markedly from approximately 1.8% to 5.3%, whereas that of H2RA users decreased gradually from approximately 2.5% to 1.9%. The use of all classical types of PPIs (omeprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomerazole) and a new type of PPI, a potassium-competitive acid blocker (vonoprazan), greatly increased during the 10 years. An upward trend in the prevalence of reflux esophagitis was observed from 2010 to 2015, but not from 2016 to 2019, indicating that the monotonic rising prevalence of reflux disease stopped in the middle of the 2010s in Japan. In contrast, various upper gastrointestinal symptoms significantly improved between 2010 and 2019. All 12 FSSG symptoms of PPI users were significantly worse than those of non-PPI users, suggesting that PPIs still cannot completely control upper gastrointestinal symptoms. In conclusion, this study revealed a significant increase in PPI use and a slight decrease in H2RA use from 2010 to 2019. Despite a plateau in the prevalence of reflux esophagitis and considerable improvement in various upper gastrointestinal symptoms, PPI use has continued to increase in Japan.

Introduction

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most common acid-suppressive medications that inhibit the final step of acid suppression [1]. PPIs are usually prescribed for the treatment of various disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) [2, 3], peptic ulcer diseases [4], Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy [5], dyspepsia [6, 7], Barrett’s esophagus [8], and eosinophilic esophagitis [9]. Similar to many developed countries, GERD is the most common acid-related disease in Japan [10]. In fact, our recent study showed that the prevalence of reflux esophagitis is much higher than that of peptic ulcers, which is partly due to the decreased prevalence of infection with H. pylori [11]. Consequently, PPIs are the most frequently used treatment for GERD in Japan.

As many previous studies have reported [12–14], the prevalence of severe reflux esophagitis is low in the Japanese population. Most cases of reflux esophagitis are diagnosed as LA-A or LA-B grades according to the Los Angeles classification [15]. Concerning the therapy for reflux esophagitis, LA-C and LA-D grades are considered as conclusive of GERD [16] and should therefore be treated with PPI. In contrast, the therapeutic plan for reflux esophagitis of grades LA-A and LA-B is determined by considering the accompanying upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Therefore, in Japan, the major reason for continuous PPI use is not to heal esophageal erosion but to control upper gastrointestinal symptoms. It is also known that the disease rate of non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) is higher than that of reflux esophagitis in Japan [10, 17]. Therefore, controlling upper gastrointestinal symptoms (especially acid reflux) is the major reason for PPI use in Japan.

Although several studies have indicated the risk of long-term PPI use [18, 19], increasing PPI usage has been reported in various regions of the world [20–23]. However, information regarding PPI use in East Asia is currently inadequate. Therefore, in this study, we examined the trend of PPI use from 2010 to 2019 using large-scale cohort data from generally healthy individuals in Japan. Along with the PPI use, we also examined the use of histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA), the trend in reflux esophagitis, and the change in upper gastrointestinal symptoms during the 10 years. We would like to understand the current use of gastric acid suppressants together with the changes in upper gastrointestinal disorders based on large-scale cohort data of the general population in Japan.

Materials and methods

Study subjects

A total of 223,793 healthy subjects who underwent medical check-ups at Kameda Medical Center Makuhari (Chiba, Japan) were prospectively enrolled from 2010 to 2019. Subjects with insufficient data for analysis were excluded from the study. This study was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the ethics committee of the Kameda Medical Center (approval no. 17–705). Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants and all data were fully anonymized before access by the researchers.

Frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD (FSSG) questionnaire

The FSSG is a widely used questionnaire for diagnosing GERD-related upper gastrointestinal symptoms, in which 12 questions cover various acid reflux and gastric dysmotility symptoms [24, 25]. The total FSSG score ranges from 0 to 48, and a score > 7 indicates the presence of abnormal GERD-related upper gastrointestinal symptoms [26]. In this study, the score ratio of each upper gastrointestinal symptom for PPI users was calculated by dividing the average PPI users’ scores by the average non-PPI users’ scores. These 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms were further classified into five categories of symptoms: (A) heartburn, (B) dyspepsia, (C) acid regurgitation, (D) pharyngo-upper esophageal discomfort, and (E) fullness while eating, which was based on a previous hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’s method with Euclidean distances) [27].

Diagnosis of reflux esophagitis

Reflux esophagitis (erosive GERD) was diagnosed according to the Los Angeles classification as in our previous reports [11, 17]. Grades A, B, C, and D (LA-A, B, C, and D) of esophageal erosion were diagnosed as the presence of reflux esophagitis. In this study, grade M (LA-M; minimal changes to the mucosa) was not considered to indicate the presence of reflux esophagitis [28].

Statistical analyses

We used JMP 10 software or SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute Inc. Cray, NC, USA) for statistical analyses. To compare the average score of 12 FSSG symptoms between PPI users and non-PPI users, Student’s t-test was used and p values <0.05 were considered as statistically significant.

Results

Trend in PPI and H2RA uses from 2010 to 2019 in Japan

After excluding subjects with insufficient data for analysis, a total of 217,712 subjects (127,607 men and 90,105 women; 51.4 ± 9.7 years old; range, 20–93 years) from 2010 to 2019 were analyzed. As shown in Fig 1(a), the rate of those who used gastric acid suppressants (PPI or H2RA) increased during the 10 years. The percentage of PPI users markedly increased from approximately 1.8% in 2010 to 5.3% in 2019. On the other hand, the percentage of H2RA users gradually decreased from approximately 2.5% (2010) to 1.9% (2019).

Fig 1. Trend in PPI and H2RA uses from 2010 to 2019 in Japan.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

(a) Changes in the percentages of PPI and H2RA users from 2010 to 2019 based on the data of generally healthy individuals in Japan. (b) Changes in the rate of the use of five types of PPI from 2010 to 2019 in Japan. PPI, proton pump inhibitor; H2RA, histamine H2 receptor antagonist.

Fig 1(b) shows the breakdown of PPI use in the last decade. In Japan, three classical PPIs (omeprazole, lansoprazole, and rabeprazole) were available in 2010. Esomeprazole, another classical PPI, was first used in 2011 [29]. Vonoprazan, a new type of PPI called potassium-competitive acid blocker, was first used in 2015 [30]. Notably, the use of esomeprazole and vonoprazan has monotonically increased since their release (Fig 1(b)).

Trend in reflux esophagitis from 2010 to 2019 in Japan

Subsequently, we evaluated the prevalence of reflux esophagitis from 2010 to 2019 since PPIs are most frequently used for the treatment of GERD. By summarizing many previous studies from Japan, Fujiwara et al. reported an apparent increase in the disease rate of GERD [10]. Our recent reports also showed that the prevalence of reflux esophagitis has markedly increased during 25 years (from 1990 to 2015), which was partly due to the reduced rate of infection with H. pylori [11].

In this study, we examined the recent trend in reflux esophagitis in our cohort from 2010 to 2019. As shown in Fig 2, an upward trend in the prevalence of reflux esophagitis was observed from 2010 to 2015. However, this increase was not observed from 2016 to 2019. Our data indicated that the monotonic increase in reflux esophagitis in Japan finally stopped in the middle of the 2010s.

Fig 2. Changes in the prevalence of reflux esophagitis (men, women, and total) from 2010 to 2019 in Japan.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Trend in upper gastrointestinal symptoms from 2010 to 2019 in Japan

Next, we examined the changes in the upper gastrointestinal symptoms from 2010 to 2019 using the FSSG questionnaire [26]. As shown in Fig 3, the total FSSG score gradually decreased over the last decade. Upon closer inspection, all the scores of the 12 questions decreased during the 10 years. According to the diagnosis by the FSSG score (a score of more than seven was considered abnormal), the percentage of subjects with abnormal upper gastrointestinal symptoms notably declined from approximately 23.5% (2010) to 15.5% (2019).

Fig 3. Changes in the total FSSG score and 12 FSSG symptoms from 2010 to 2019 in Japan.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

The left axis (from 0 to 5) is for the total FSSG score, and the change of total FSSG score is shown by line graph. The right axis (from 0 to 1) is for each of the 12 FSSG scores, which are shown by bar graphs from 2010 to 2019. FSSG, frequency scale for the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

As described in the Introduction, the major reason for the continued use of PPIs is to control upper gastrointestinal symptoms [12–14, 16]. Therefore, we examined the association between various upper gastrointestinal symptoms and PPI use over the period of 10 years. As shown in Fig 4, all 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms in PPI users were significantly worse than those in non-PPI users in our cohort (p<0.05 for all 12 symptoms from 2010 to 2019). Furthermore, Fig 4 also shows that all 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms improved from 2010 to 2019 for both PPI and non-PPI users. These results imply that PPI users still suffer from diverse upper gastrointestinal symptoms despite PPI use. Even today, there are various upper gastrointestinal symptoms that are not well controlled by PPIs.

Fig 4. Changes in the 12 gastrointestinal symptoms based on the FSSG scores from 2010 to 2019 among generally healthy individuals in Japan.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

The left half shows the average score of 12 FSSG symptoms in non-PPI users, and the right half shows the average score of 12 FSSG symptoms in PPI users. FSSG, frequency scale for the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Association between the use of PPI and the 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms

Finally, we investigated the association between PPI use and the 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms (Fig 5). As shown in Fig 5(a), the average scores of the 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms for PPI users and non-PPI users varied considerably. The symptom scores of PPI users were significantly greater than those of non-PPI users (p < 0.05 for all the 12 symptoms), suggesting that PPI is used to control various upper gastrointestinal symptoms but not all symptoms entirely.

Fig 5. The relationship between the use of PPI and the 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms by FSSG.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

(a) Detailed data of the 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms of PPI users and non-PPI users. (b) The score ratio of the 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms of PPI users in comparison with non-PPI users. (c) Detailed data and the score ratio of three upper gastrointestinal symptom categories. PPI, proton pump inhibitor; FSSG, frequency scale for the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The score ratios of the 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms (PPI users vs. non-PPI users) were diverse and ranged widely from 1.23–2.92. Based on the five categories of symptoms derived from the hierarchical cluster analysis of FSSG symptoms [27], all symptom score ratios are illustrated in Fig 5(b). At a glance, most symptom score ratios for “heartburn” and “acid regurgitation” categories were high except for “burping a lot”; a score ratio of “burping a lot” was significantly lower than those of other four symptoms (p < 0.05). Similarly, most symptom score ratios for “dyspepsia” and “fullness while eating” categories were low except for “rubbing the chest with hands”; a score ratio of “rubbing the chest with hands” was significantly higher than those of other four symptoms (p < 0.05). As the hierarchical cluster analysis of the five symptom categories can reflect a similar etiology or mechanism of various upper gastrointestinal symptoms belonging to the same category, the significant difference in PPI use among the five symptom categories should suggest the different involvement of gastric acid upon them.

To grasp various upper gastrointestinal symptoms more simply, we further classified the 12 symptoms into three categories: “heartburn or acid regurgitation (GERD-related gastrointestinal symptoms)”, “dyspepsia or fullness while eating (GERD-unrelated symptoms)”, and “pharyngo-upper esophageal discomfort (symptoms of pharyngo-upper esophageal area)”. As shown in Fig 5(c), the ratios of FSSG score between PPI users and non-PPI users were 2.13 for “heartburn or acid regurgitation”, 1.47 for “dyspepsia or fullness while eating (GERD-unrelated symptoms)”, and 1.73 for “pharyngo-upper esophageal discomfort”. Our data showed that PPIs are most frequently used for GERD-related symptoms, but also indicated that they are sometimes used for other upper gastrointestinal symptoms with little relation to GERD.

Discussion and conclusion

Using large-scale cohort data of generally healthy individuals in Japan, our study clearly showed a marked increase in PPI use in Japan, which is accompanied by a gradual decrease in H2RA use. The increasing and frequent use of PPIs has been reported in many countries such as the United States [31], France [32], Hungary [23], and Iceland [21]. In comparison with Western countries, the percentage of PPI users is still lower in Japan, but the monotonous increase and PPI use of more than 5% in a generally healthy population are noteworthy trends in Japan (Fig 1).

Recently, Sakata et al. reported an increasing use of PPIs based on prescription data from 2009 to 2016 [33]. Although there were some differences in the breakdown of the agents used, Sakata’s report and our study both showed an upward trend in the PPI use in Japan. By analyzing the data of patients who were prescribed PPIs in the hospital, Sakata showed an increasing number of patients taking PPIs together with antithrombotic drugs [33]. In contrast, our study analyzed the data of healthy individuals participating in a health check program. Therefore, compared with Sakata’s study, the percentage of individuals who used antithrombotic drugs was much lower in our study population, and most PPI users in this study had bothersome upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or reflux esophagitis. Despite a plateau in the increased prevalence of reflux esophagitis (Fig 2) and considerable improvement in various upper gastrointestinal symptoms (Fig 3), it should be worthy of mention that PPI use has still been increasing in Japan.

The prevalence of infections with H. pylori has been rapidly decreasing not only in Japan but also worldwide [11, 34], which can lead to a reduced prevalence in mucosal atrophy, increase in intragastric pH, and rising disease rate of reflux disease [35, 36]. We believe that the declining rate of infection with H. pylori is one of the reasons for the increased PPI use. However, as shown in Fig 2, the increasing trend in reflux esophagitis finally stopped in the middle of the 2010s. In addition, various upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the Japanese population have improved over the last decade (Figs 3 and 4). Our data cannot adequately explain why PPI use continues to increase.

The discrepancy between the ratio of the 12 upper gastrointestinal symptoms scores (PPI users vs. non-PPI users; Fig 4) and the hierarchical cluster analysis of the five categories of symptoms (Fig 5) indicated that PPI is prescribed for various upper gastrointestinal symptoms and not always used for typical acid-related situations. As expected, our results (Fig 5(b) and 5(c)) showed that PPI is most frequently used and obviously effective for GERD-related symptoms (heartburn or acid regurgitation). However, our results (Figs 4 and 5) also indicated that PPI is sometimes used for GERD-unrelated symptoms (dyspepsia or fullness while eating), as all and total symptom score ratios (PPI users vs. non-PPI users) were more than 1 with statistical significance (Fig 5(b) and 5(c)). Although the mechanism of PPIs upon dyspepsia symptoms has not been elucidated, a recent large-scale meta-analysis showed that PPIs are effective for the treatment of functional dyspepsia [37]. Our results derived from the data of healthy people in Japan suggest that PPI can control GERD-unrelated upper gastrointestinal symptoms to some extent, which is consistent with the result of the meta-analysis evaluating 25 randomized controlled trials worldwide [37].

As described in the Introduction, many studies have mentioned the risk of long-term PPI use [18, 19]. In particular, safety data on the long-term use of vonoprazan are insufficient because this new and highly effective gastric acid suppressant was prescribed only seven years ago. Following careful consideration of the effects and risks of PPIs, we should continue to assess the necessity of PPI use based on multiple epidemiological factors such as the disease rate of reflux esophagitis, prevalence of chronic infection with H. pylori, trend in various upper gastrointestinal symptoms, and the increasing use of antithrombotic drugs.

In conclusion, large-scale data of 217,712 generally healthy individuals in Japan revealed a significant increase in PPI use accompanied by a slight decrease in H2RA use from 2010 to 2019. Despite a plateaued increase in the prevalence of reflux esophagitis in the middle of the 2010s and considerable improvement in various upper gastrointestinal symptoms from 2010 to 2019, PPI use has continued to increase in Japan. All upper gastrointestinal symptoms in PPI users were significantly worse than those in non-PPI users, indicating that PPIs still cannot presently control all upper gastrointestinal symptoms.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (16.4MB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Mr. Minoru Okada (Kameda Medical Center Makuhari, Chiba-shi, Chiba, Japan) for assistance with establishment and maintenance of the study database.

Data Availability

All the raw data were uploaded as Supporting information file.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Spechler SJ. Proton pump inhibitors: what the internist needs to know. Med Clin North Am. 2019;103: 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2018.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108: 308–328; quiz 329. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Iwakiri K, Kinoshita Y, Habu Y, Oshima T, Manabe N, Fujiwara Y, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for gastroesophageal reflux disease 2015. J Gastroenterol. 2016;51: 751–767. doi: 10.1007/s00535-016-1227-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kamada T, Satoh K, Itoh T, Ito M, Iwamoto J, Okimoto T, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for peptic ulcer disease 2020. J Gastroenterol. 2021;56: 303–322. doi: 10.1007/s00535-021-01769-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chey WD, Leontiadis GI, Howden CW, Moss SF. ACG clinical guideline: treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112: 212–239. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wang WH, Huang JQ, Zheng GF, Xia HH, Wong WM, Liu XG, et al. Effects of proton-pump inhibitors on functional dyspepsia: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5: 178–185; quiz 140. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Moayyedi P, Lacy BE, Andrews CN, Enns RA, Howden CW, Vakil N. ACG and CAG clinical guideline: management of dyspepsia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112: 988–1013. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2017.154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Singh S, Garg SK, Singh PP, Iyer PG, El-Serag HB. Acid-suppressive medications and risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. 2014;63: 1229–1237. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lucendo AJ, Arias Á, Molina-Infante J. Efficacy of proton pump inhibitor drugs for inducing clinical and histologic remission in patients With symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14: 13–22.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.07.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fujiwara Y, Arakawa T. Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of GERD in the Japanese population. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44: 518–534. doi: 10.1007/s00535-009-0047-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yamamichi N, Yamaji Y, Shimamoto T, Takahashi Y, Majima K, Wada R, et al. Inverse time trends of peptic ulcer and reflux esophagitis show significant association with reduced prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection. Ann Med. 2020;52: 506–514. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2020.1782461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yamagishi H, Koike T, Ohara S, Abe Y, Iijima K, Imatani A, et al. Clinical characteristics of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Japan. Hepatogastroenterology. 2009;56: 1032–1034. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fujimoto K, Iwakiri R, Okamoto K, Oda K, Tanaka A, Tsunada S, et al. Characteristics of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Japan: increased prevalence in elderly women. J Gastroenterol. 2003;38;Suppl 15: 3–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Matsuda R, Yamamichi N, Shimamoto T, Sumida H, Takahashi Y, Minatsuki C, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease-related disorders of systemic sclerosis based on the analysis of 66 patients. Digestion. 2018;98: 201–208. doi: 10.1159/000489848 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lundell LR, Dent J, Bennett JR, Blum AL, Armstrong D, Galmiche JP, et al. Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut. 1999;45: 172–180. doi: 10.1136/gut.45.2.172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Savarino E, Zerbib F, Mion F, Smout AJPM, et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus. Gut. 2018;67: 1351–1362. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Minatsuki C, Yamamichi N, Shimamoto T, Kakimoto H, Takahashi Y, Fujishiro M, et al. Background factors of reflux esophagitis and non-erosive reflux disease: a cross-sectional study of 10,837 subjects in Japan. PLOS ONE. 2013;8: e69891. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Freedberg DE, Kim LS, Yang YX. The risks and benefits of long-term use of proton pump inhibitors: expert review and best practice advice From the American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology. 2017;152: 706–715. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Malfertheiner P, Kandulski A, Venerito M. Proton-pump inhibitors: understanding the complications and risks. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14: 697–710. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rotman SR, Bishop TF. Proton pump inhibitor use in the U.S. ambulatory setting, 2002–2009. PLOS ONE. 2013;8: e56060. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hálfdánarson ÓÖ, Pottegård A, Björnsson ES, Lund SH, Ogmundsdottir MH, Steingrímsson E, et al. Proton-pump inhibitors among adults: a nationwide drug-utilization study. Ther Adv Gastroenterol. 2018;11: 1756284818777943. doi: 10.1177/1756284818777943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Luo H, Fan Q, Xiao S, Chen K. Changes in proton pump inhibitor prescribing trend over the past decade and pharmacists’ effect on prescribing practice at a tertiary hospital. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18: 537. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3358-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Matuz M, Benkő R, Engi Z, Schváb K, Doró P, Viola R, et al. Use of proton pump inhibitors in Hungary: mixed-method study to reveal scale and characteristics. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11: 552102. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.552102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Furuta T, Shimatani T, Sugimoto M, Ishihara S, Fujiwara Y, Kusano M, et al. Investigation of pretreatment prediction of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-resistant patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and the dose escalation challenge of PPIs-Tornado study: a multicenter prospective study by the Acid-Related Symptom Research Group in Japan. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46: 1273–1283. doi: 10.1007/s00535-011-0446-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yamamichi N, Mochizuki S, Asada-Hirayama I, Mikami-Matsuda R, Shimamoto T, Konno-Shimizu M, et al. Lifestyle factors affecting gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: a cross-sectional study of healthy 19864 adults using FSSG scores. BMC Med. 2012;10: 45. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-45 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kusano M, Shimoyama Y, Sugimoto S, Kawamura O, Maeda M, Minashi K, et al. Development and evaluation of FSSG: frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD. J Gastroenterol. 2004;39: 888–891. doi: 10.1007/s00535-004-1417-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yamamichi N, Shimamoto T, Sakaguchi Y, Takahashi Y, Kodashima S, Nakayama C, et al. Categorization of upper gastrointestinal symptoms is useful in predicting background factors and studying effects and usages of digestive drugs. PLOS ONE. 2014;9: e88277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Miwa H, Yokoyama T, Hori K, Sakagami T, Oshima T, Tomita T, et al. Interobserver agreement in endoscopic evaluation of reflux esophagitis using a modified Los Angeles classification incorporating grades N and M: a validation study in a cohort of Japanese endoscopists. Dis Esophagus. 2008;21: 355–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2007.00788.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kahrilas PJ, Falk GW, Johnson DA, Schmitt C, Collins DW, Whipple J, et al. Esomeprazole improves healing and symptom resolution as compared with omeprazole in reflux oesophagitis patients: a randomized controlled trial. The esomeprazole Study Investigators. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;14: 1249–1258. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00856.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Arikawa Y, Nishida H, Kurasawa O, Hasuoka A, Hirase K, Inatomi N, et al. Discovery of a novel pyrrole derivative 1-[5-(2-fluorophenyl)-1-(pyridin-3-ylsulfonyl)-1H-pyrrol-3-yl]-N-methylmethanamin e fumarate (TAK-438) as a potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB). J Med Chem. 2012;55: 4446–4456. doi: 10.1021/jm300318t [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mishuk AU, Chen L, Gaillard P, Westrick S, Hansen RA, Qian J. National trends in prescription proton pump inhibitor use and expenditure in the United States in 2002–2017. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2020.09.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lassalle M, Le Tri T, Bardou M, Biour M, Kirchgesner J, Rouby F, et al. Use of proton pump inhibitors in adults in France: a nationwide drug utilization study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;76: 449–457. doi: 10.1007/s00228-019-02810-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sakata Y, Tsuruoka N, Takedomi H, Akutagawa T, Shimoda R, Esaki M, et al. A study on the status of proton pump inhibitor prescriptions using diagnosis procedure combination data in Japan. Digestion. 2020;101: 308–315. doi: 10.1159/000498967 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hooi JKY, Lai WY, Ng WK, Suen MMY, Underwood FE, Tanyingoh D, et al. Global prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2017;153: 420–429. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.04.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lahner E, Carabotti M, Annibale B. Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in atrophic gastritis. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24: 2373–2380. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i22.2373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Iijima K, Koike T, Abe Y, Ohara S, Nakaya N, Shimosegawa T. Time series analysis of gastric acid secretion over a 20-year period in normal Japanese men. J Gastroenterol. 2015;50: 853–861. doi: 10.1007/s00535-014-1031-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pinto-Sanchez MI, Yuan Y, Hassan A, Bercik P, Moayyedi P. Proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11: CD011194. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011194.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rasa Zarnegar

11 May 2022

PONE-D-22-02306Trends in proton pump inhibitor use, reflux esophagitis, and various upper gastrointestinal symptoms from 2010 to 2019 in JapanPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yamamichi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 25 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rasa Zarnegar, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

I think this manuscript has value.

Please respond to the reviewer comments below.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I applaud the Authors for a thorough review and the impressive patient population included in the study. The manuscript presents a decade of experience in prescribing antacid medications in Japan which mirrors the international trend which has seen an increase in the prescription of PPIs worldwide. Importantly it sheds a light on the issue of overprescription of PPIs for the wrong symptoms (such as the most common: bloating). However before publication several points need to be addressed:

1) The tables appear to be overly convoluted and difficult to read, mostly because of an abundance of duplicate entries from the FSSG questionnaire (Heartburn, heartburn while bending, heartburn after meals). I wonder if a simplification of the symptoms categories would be possible including clustering similar symptoms together (heartburn) and/or removing symptoms which are not very specific to GERD (feeling sick after meals) as tables are very difficult to read in their present form. Perhaps splitting symptoms into typical (HB, regurgitation, chest pain and dysphagia) and atypical could help. All the 12 entries could be left as is in table 5.

2) It would be interesting to know the schedule and indications for EGD surveillance and whether the authors subscribe to ASGE guidelines

3) It seems like the most common symptom the patient report is bloating, which is not usually improved by PPIs administration. There is however an improvement in patients reporting this symptom amongst PPI takers. This should be expanded upon in the discussion.

4) It would be interesting to know how many of the patients underwent anti-reflux surgery for their symptoms. I know its not very popular in Japan but perhaps some of the patients underwent this route.

5) each figure should have a description for easier interpretability

6) given the detail of the database it would be good to know if authors also collected other medical history hinting to PPIs side effects such as PNA, C. Difficlile Colitis, fractures and esophageal cancer rates.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Filippo Filicori, MD

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jun 17;17(6):e0270252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270252.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

26 May 2022

All the responses are described in the uploaded MS-word file (response to reviewers).

Please see the file whose name is "Rebuttal 01_PLOSONE.doc".

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal 01_PLOSONE.doc

Click here for additional data file. (85KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

Rasa Zarnegar

8 Jun 2022

Trends in proton pump inhibitor use, reflux esophagitis, and various upper gastrointestinal symptoms from 2010 to 2019 in Japan

PONE-D-22-02306R1

Dear Dr. Yamamichi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rasa Zarnegar, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Rasa Zarnegar

10 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-02306R1

Trends in proton pump inhibitor use, reflux esophagitis, and various upper gastrointestinal symptoms from 2010 to 2019 in Japan

Dear Dr. Yamamichi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rasa Zarnegar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES