Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE
Yong Chan Lee |
Professor of Medicine Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco San Francisco, USA |
Jong Pil Im | Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea |
Robert S. Bresalier | University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA |
Steven H. Itzkowitz | Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA |
All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.
The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.
Tae-Geun Gweon1, Jong-Hyung Park2, Byung-Wook Kim1, Yang Kyu Choi2, Joon Sung Kim1, Sung Min Park1, Chang Whan Kim3, Hyung-Gil Kim4, Jun-Won Chung5, Incheon and Western Kyonggi Gastrointestinal Study
Correspondence to: Byung-Wook Kim, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, 56 Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon 21431, Korea, Tel: +82-32-280-5052, Fax: +82-32-280-5987, E-mail: gastro@catholic.ac.kr
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Gut Liver 2018;12(1):46-50. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17078
Published online October 27, 2017, Published date January 15, 2018
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of rebamipide on tight junction proteins in the esophageal mucosa in a rat model of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). GERD was created in rats by tying the proximal stomach. The rats were divided into a control group, a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) group, and a PPI plus rebamipide (PPI+R) group. Pantoprazole (5 mg/kg) was administered intraperitoneally to the PPI and PPI+R groups. An additional dose of rebamipide (100 mg/kg) was administered orally to the PPI+R group. Mucosal erosions, epithelial thickness, and leukocyte infiltration into the esophageal mucosa were measured in isolated esophagi 14 days after the procedure. A Western blot analysis was conducted to measure the expression of claudin-1, -3, and -4. The mean surface area of mucosal erosions, epithelial thickness, and leukocyte infiltration were lower in the PPI group and the PPI+R group than in the control group. Western blot analysis revealed that the expression of claudin-3 and -4 was significantly higher in the PPI+R group than in the control group. Rebamipide may exert an additive effect in combination with PPI to modify the tight junction proteins of the esophageal mucosa in a rat model of GERD. This treatment might be associated with the relief of GERD symptoms.Background/Aims
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Keywords: Gastroesophageal reflux, Rebamipide, Tight junction protein
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic and troublesome condition when gastric content reflux into the esophagus and causes symptoms.1 Tissue resistance is one of the defense mechanisms of the esophagus and prevents mucosal damage from the gastric refluxate. However, refluxed gastric acid might increase the permeability of the esophageal mucosa and result in dilation of intercellular space (DIC).2,3 Subsequently, gastric acid may diffuse through the DIC and activate the acid-sensitive nociceptors in the esophageal wall.3,4 DIC has been reported to be associated with GERD symptom,4,5 and administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been shown to recover DIC.
Rebamipide, a mucosal protective agent, has various effects favoring ulcer healing and prevention of gastric injury induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and
Claudin is a tight junction protein in the epithelium and endothelium and exerts critical barrier function of the tight junction. Claudin is found in tissues of the kidney, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract.8 Recent studies showed that altered locations of claudins are associated with GERD and decrease of claudin-3 has been demonstrated in rats with GERD.9,10 We hypothesized that administration of rebamipide might improve these tight junction proteins and consequently improve GERD symptoms. In this study, we tried to investigate the effect of rebamipide on tight junction proteins of the esophageal mucosa in a rat model with GERD.
Male Sprague-Dawley rats aged 7 weeks were purchased from commercial provider and used in this study. The rats were fasted for 18 hours before surgery and anesthetized with ether. After midline incision, the junction between corpus and forestomach was tied, and the duodenum near the pyloric ring was wrapped with O-ring as in other studies.9,10 Diet was restricted except water, normal saline, and glucose for 24 hours after surgery. The rats were divided into three groups; control group, PPI group, and PPI plus rebamipide (PPI+R) group. In all three groups, 0.5% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC; Sigma Chemical, St. Louis, MO, USA) in normal saline solution was administered intragastrically through a feeding needle. Pantoprazole was administered at 5 mg/kg/day intraperitoneally in PPI group and in PPI+R group until sacrificed. In PPI+R group, rebamipide was administered at 100 mg/kg/day into the stomach through a feeding needle immediately after administration of intraperitoneal PPI until sacrificed. Body weight was checked daily and the rats were sacrificed 14 days after creating GERD. The whole esophagus along with the proximal part of stomach was isolated and observed for evaluation of erosive lesions. These lesions were marked with a pen and the gross area of whole mucosal defects was calculated. A part of tissue was cut longitudinally and embedded in paraffin for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stain and another part was frozen by liquid nitrogen for further studies. Epithelial thickness of the esophagus, defined as depth of the mucosal epithelium, was measured and leukocytes infiltration into the mucosal layer was assessed in three random high power fields in H&E stained tissue (×200). All experimental procedures were approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea (No. CIMH-2014-001).
After cutting the paraffin-embedded tissues, they were incubated with blocking agents containing 0.5% Blocking Reagent (PerkinElmer Life Science, Waltham, MA, USA), Tris-HCl (0.1 M, pH 7.5), and NaCl (0.15 M) for 30 minutes at room temperature, followed by a mixture of rabbit anti-claudin-1 antibody (1:150; Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, USA) or anticlaudin-3 antibody (1:100; Merck Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA) or mouse anti-claudin-4 antibody (1:400; Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc.) overnight at 4°C. The sections were incubated with a mixture of goat anti-mouse IgG antibody (claudin-1 and claudin-3) or goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody (claudin-4) for 1 hour at room temperature. The stained sections were viewed with a microscope after administration of 4′-6′-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI).
Claudins-1, -3, and -4 expressions were measured by Western blot assay. In brief, the detached esophageal mucosa was homogenized in iced lysate buffer containing Tris-HCl (50 mmol/L, pH 8.0), NaCl (150 mmol/L), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA; 1 mmol/L), and Triton X-100 (1%). Then they were centrifuged at 12,000×
Daily body weight change was expressed as percent of weight compared with initial body weight which was measured before surgery. Continuous variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation and were compared using student t-test. The measured expressions of claudin-1, -3, and -4 were compared using analysis of variance test. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
One rat in the control group died after creating GERD due to over-sedation during the surgery. A total of 23 rats (control group, 7; PPI group, 8; PPI+R group, 8) completed this study. Mean body weight after fasting in control group, PPI group, and PPI+R group was 190.6, 195.5, and 194.9 g, respectively. Mean body weight at the end of study in each group was 203.5, 214.7, and 223.0 g, respectively. Body weight change in each group is shown in Fig. 1. Body weight was increased in all groups at the end of study. PPI+R group showed the highest increase of body weight, but was not statistically significant.
Esophageal erosions were observed in 7 (100.0%, 7/7), 2 (25.0%, 2/8), and 3 (37.5%, 3/8) rats in control group, PPI group, and PPI+R group, respectively. Mean surface area of the erosions in each group was 7.7±4.5, 0.7±1.5, and 0.7±1.3 mm2, respectively. The area of erosion in PPI group and in PPI+R group was smaller than in control group (p=0.001, p=0.001, respectively) (Fig. 2A). Epithelial thickness in each group was 118.6±35.2, 81.0±17.8, and 66.8±9.8 μm, respectively. Epithelial thickness in PPI group and in PPI+R group was significantly decreased than in control group (p=0.047, p=0.004, respectively) (Fig. 2B). Number of infiltrated leukocytes in each group was 9.2±3.0, 4.7±1.5, 2.3±0.8, respectively. Number of leukocyte infiltration in PPI group and in PPI+R group was significantly lower than in control group (p=0.002, p=0.001, respectively) (Fig. 2C). Fig. 3 shows the histology of each group.
On immunohistochemical staining, the expression of claudin-3 was decreased in control group compared with PPI group and in PPI+R group. On Western blot assay, the expression of claudin-1 in each group was 1.8±0.4, 1.6±0.9, and 1.6±0.8, respectively. The expression of claudin-1 was not different in each group. The claudin-3 levels were measured as 0.6±0.0, 1.2±0.2, and 1.6±1.1 in each group respectively (Fig. 4A). The expression of claudin-3 was significantly higher in PPI+R group compared with control group (p=0.036) (Fig. 4B). The claudin-4 expression levels were measured as 0.2±0.1, 0.6±0.3, and 0.9±0.7 in each group respectively. The expression of claudin-4 was significantly higher in PPI+R group compared with control group (p=0.035) (Fig. 4C).
Rebamipide has been shown to enhance the protective effect of esophageal mucosal in various animal models and in humans with GERD.7,11 However, the exact mechanism of this protective mechanism remained unknown. In the current study, we found that the administration of rebamipide along with PPI decreased the tight junction proteins of the esophageal mucosa. Rebamipide alone might also reduce the permeability of the mucosa in other parts of gastrointestinal tract,12,13 and work synergistically with PPIs in GERD patients. The expressions of claudin-3 and claudin-4 were only significantly higher in PPI+R group compared to control group. This suggests that PPI alone may not be sufficient in reducing the permeability of esophageal mucosa.
Decreased expression of claudin-3 and -4 was demonstrated in various GERD animal models and in humans with GERD.9,10,14,15 Another report showed that claudin-3 could be a sensitive indicator of reflux laryngitis in rats.16 Considering these reports together with our results, it is plausible that co-administration of rebamipide with PPI profoundly recovers the permeability of esophageal mucosa in rat GERD models.
Body weight of the rats increased in all groups after surgery in this study. Rats in PPI+R group showed the highest weight gain among all groups. Although it was not statistically significant, this finding implies the additive therapeutic efficacy of rebamipide over the single administration of PPI. Rebamipide might improve the reflux symptoms induced by reflux of gastric acid and hence food uptake was increased in our experimental models.
The number of mucosal erosions was significantly less in PPI group and in PPI+R group compared with control group. These results are in concordance with previous reports on the effect of enhanced ulcer healing in an animal model and iatrogenic gastric ulcer in humans.17,18 Our study showed that decreased thickness of epithelial layer and decreased number of leukocytes infiltrated in esophageal mucosa were more profound in PPI group and in PPI+R group compared with control group. From these findings we can conclude that PPI reduces inflammatory changes of the esophageal mucosa in GERD model and that rebamipide has additive effect. Our results support the previous report which showed that rebamipide inhibited the adherence of neutrophils to endothelial cell.19
There are several limitations to our study. There are differences between naturally occurring GERD and iatrogenic GERD pathophysiologically. Large amount of rebamipide directly contacts esophagus due to delayed gastric emptying in animal model while only small amount of rebamipide contacts esophagus in human GERD without obstruction.
In conclusion, administration of rebamipide along with PPI modifies tight junction proteins of esophageal mucosa, which resulted in prevention of GERD in a rat model. Further studies are anticipated to validate the effect of rebamipide in human esophageal mucosa.
PPI, proton pump inhibitor; PPI+R, PPI plus rebamipide.
HPF, high power field.
PPI, proton pump inhibitor; PPI+R, PPI plus rebamipide.
Gut and Liver 2018; 12(1): 46-50
Published online January 15, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17078
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Tae-Geun Gweon1, Jong-Hyung Park2, Byung-Wook Kim1, Yang Kyu Choi2, Joon Sung Kim1, Sung Min Park1, Chang Whan Kim3, Hyung-Gil Kim4, Jun-Won Chung5, Incheon and Western Kyonggi Gastrointestinal Study
1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea, 2Department of Laboratory Animal Medicine, Konkuk University College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 3Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea, 4Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea, 5Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea
Correspondence to: Byung-Wook Kim, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, 56 Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon 21431, Korea, Tel: +82-32-280-5052, Fax: +82-32-280-5987, E-mail: gastro@catholic.ac.kr
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of rebamipide on tight junction proteins in the esophageal mucosa in a rat model of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). GERD was created in rats by tying the proximal stomach. The rats were divided into a control group, a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) group, and a PPI plus rebamipide (PPI+R) group. Pantoprazole (5 mg/kg) was administered intraperitoneally to the PPI and PPI+R groups. An additional dose of rebamipide (100 mg/kg) was administered orally to the PPI+R group. Mucosal erosions, epithelial thickness, and leukocyte infiltration into the esophageal mucosa were measured in isolated esophagi 14 days after the procedure. A Western blot analysis was conducted to measure the expression of claudin-1, -3, and -4. The mean surface area of mucosal erosions, epithelial thickness, and leukocyte infiltration were lower in the PPI group and the PPI+R group than in the control group. Western blot analysis revealed that the expression of claudin-3 and -4 was significantly higher in the PPI+R group than in the control group. Rebamipide may exert an additive effect in combination with PPI to modify the tight junction proteins of the esophageal mucosa in a rat model of GERD. This treatment might be associated with the relief of GERD symptoms.Background/Aims
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Keywords: Gastroesophageal reflux, Rebamipide, Tight junction protein
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic and troublesome condition when gastric content reflux into the esophagus and causes symptoms.1 Tissue resistance is one of the defense mechanisms of the esophagus and prevents mucosal damage from the gastric refluxate. However, refluxed gastric acid might increase the permeability of the esophageal mucosa and result in dilation of intercellular space (DIC).2,3 Subsequently, gastric acid may diffuse through the DIC and activate the acid-sensitive nociceptors in the esophageal wall.3,4 DIC has been reported to be associated with GERD symptom,4,5 and administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been shown to recover DIC.
Rebamipide, a mucosal protective agent, has various effects favoring ulcer healing and prevention of gastric injury induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and
Claudin is a tight junction protein in the epithelium and endothelium and exerts critical barrier function of the tight junction. Claudin is found in tissues of the kidney, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract.8 Recent studies showed that altered locations of claudins are associated with GERD and decrease of claudin-3 has been demonstrated in rats with GERD.9,10 We hypothesized that administration of rebamipide might improve these tight junction proteins and consequently improve GERD symptoms. In this study, we tried to investigate the effect of rebamipide on tight junction proteins of the esophageal mucosa in a rat model with GERD.
Male Sprague-Dawley rats aged 7 weeks were purchased from commercial provider and used in this study. The rats were fasted for 18 hours before surgery and anesthetized with ether. After midline incision, the junction between corpus and forestomach was tied, and the duodenum near the pyloric ring was wrapped with O-ring as in other studies.9,10 Diet was restricted except water, normal saline, and glucose for 24 hours after surgery. The rats were divided into three groups; control group, PPI group, and PPI plus rebamipide (PPI+R) group. In all three groups, 0.5% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC; Sigma Chemical, St. Louis, MO, USA) in normal saline solution was administered intragastrically through a feeding needle. Pantoprazole was administered at 5 mg/kg/day intraperitoneally in PPI group and in PPI+R group until sacrificed. In PPI+R group, rebamipide was administered at 100 mg/kg/day into the stomach through a feeding needle immediately after administration of intraperitoneal PPI until sacrificed. Body weight was checked daily and the rats were sacrificed 14 days after creating GERD. The whole esophagus along with the proximal part of stomach was isolated and observed for evaluation of erosive lesions. These lesions were marked with a pen and the gross area of whole mucosal defects was calculated. A part of tissue was cut longitudinally and embedded in paraffin for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stain and another part was frozen by liquid nitrogen for further studies. Epithelial thickness of the esophagus, defined as depth of the mucosal epithelium, was measured and leukocytes infiltration into the mucosal layer was assessed in three random high power fields in H&E stained tissue (×200). All experimental procedures were approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea (No. CIMH-2014-001).
After cutting the paraffin-embedded tissues, they were incubated with blocking agents containing 0.5% Blocking Reagent (PerkinElmer Life Science, Waltham, MA, USA), Tris-HCl (0.1 M, pH 7.5), and NaCl (0.15 M) for 30 minutes at room temperature, followed by a mixture of rabbit anti-claudin-1 antibody (1:150; Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, USA) or anticlaudin-3 antibody (1:100; Merck Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA) or mouse anti-claudin-4 antibody (1:400; Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc.) overnight at 4°C. The sections were incubated with a mixture of goat anti-mouse IgG antibody (claudin-1 and claudin-3) or goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody (claudin-4) for 1 hour at room temperature. The stained sections were viewed with a microscope after administration of 4′-6′-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI).
Claudins-1, -3, and -4 expressions were measured by Western blot assay. In brief, the detached esophageal mucosa was homogenized in iced lysate buffer containing Tris-HCl (50 mmol/L, pH 8.0), NaCl (150 mmol/L), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA; 1 mmol/L), and Triton X-100 (1%). Then they were centrifuged at 12,000×
Daily body weight change was expressed as percent of weight compared with initial body weight which was measured before surgery. Continuous variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation and were compared using student t-test. The measured expressions of claudin-1, -3, and -4 were compared using analysis of variance test. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
One rat in the control group died after creating GERD due to over-sedation during the surgery. A total of 23 rats (control group, 7; PPI group, 8; PPI+R group, 8) completed this study. Mean body weight after fasting in control group, PPI group, and PPI+R group was 190.6, 195.5, and 194.9 g, respectively. Mean body weight at the end of study in each group was 203.5, 214.7, and 223.0 g, respectively. Body weight change in each group is shown in Fig. 1. Body weight was increased in all groups at the end of study. PPI+R group showed the highest increase of body weight, but was not statistically significant.
Esophageal erosions were observed in 7 (100.0%, 7/7), 2 (25.0%, 2/8), and 3 (37.5%, 3/8) rats in control group, PPI group, and PPI+R group, respectively. Mean surface area of the erosions in each group was 7.7±4.5, 0.7±1.5, and 0.7±1.3 mm2, respectively. The area of erosion in PPI group and in PPI+R group was smaller than in control group (p=0.001, p=0.001, respectively) (Fig. 2A). Epithelial thickness in each group was 118.6±35.2, 81.0±17.8, and 66.8±9.8 μm, respectively. Epithelial thickness in PPI group and in PPI+R group was significantly decreased than in control group (p=0.047, p=0.004, respectively) (Fig. 2B). Number of infiltrated leukocytes in each group was 9.2±3.0, 4.7±1.5, 2.3±0.8, respectively. Number of leukocyte infiltration in PPI group and in PPI+R group was significantly lower than in control group (p=0.002, p=0.001, respectively) (Fig. 2C). Fig. 3 shows the histology of each group.
On immunohistochemical staining, the expression of claudin-3 was decreased in control group compared with PPI group and in PPI+R group. On Western blot assay, the expression of claudin-1 in each group was 1.8±0.4, 1.6±0.9, and 1.6±0.8, respectively. The expression of claudin-1 was not different in each group. The claudin-3 levels were measured as 0.6±0.0, 1.2±0.2, and 1.6±1.1 in each group respectively (Fig. 4A). The expression of claudin-3 was significantly higher in PPI+R group compared with control group (p=0.036) (Fig. 4B). The claudin-4 expression levels were measured as 0.2±0.1, 0.6±0.3, and 0.9±0.7 in each group respectively. The expression of claudin-4 was significantly higher in PPI+R group compared with control group (p=0.035) (Fig. 4C).
Rebamipide has been shown to enhance the protective effect of esophageal mucosal in various animal models and in humans with GERD.7,11 However, the exact mechanism of this protective mechanism remained unknown. In the current study, we found that the administration of rebamipide along with PPI decreased the tight junction proteins of the esophageal mucosa. Rebamipide alone might also reduce the permeability of the mucosa in other parts of gastrointestinal tract,12,13 and work synergistically with PPIs in GERD patients. The expressions of claudin-3 and claudin-4 were only significantly higher in PPI+R group compared to control group. This suggests that PPI alone may not be sufficient in reducing the permeability of esophageal mucosa.
Decreased expression of claudin-3 and -4 was demonstrated in various GERD animal models and in humans with GERD.9,10,14,15 Another report showed that claudin-3 could be a sensitive indicator of reflux laryngitis in rats.16 Considering these reports together with our results, it is plausible that co-administration of rebamipide with PPI profoundly recovers the permeability of esophageal mucosa in rat GERD models.
Body weight of the rats increased in all groups after surgery in this study. Rats in PPI+R group showed the highest weight gain among all groups. Although it was not statistically significant, this finding implies the additive therapeutic efficacy of rebamipide over the single administration of PPI. Rebamipide might improve the reflux symptoms induced by reflux of gastric acid and hence food uptake was increased in our experimental models.
The number of mucosal erosions was significantly less in PPI group and in PPI+R group compared with control group. These results are in concordance with previous reports on the effect of enhanced ulcer healing in an animal model and iatrogenic gastric ulcer in humans.17,18 Our study showed that decreased thickness of epithelial layer and decreased number of leukocytes infiltrated in esophageal mucosa were more profound in PPI group and in PPI+R group compared with control group. From these findings we can conclude that PPI reduces inflammatory changes of the esophageal mucosa in GERD model and that rebamipide has additive effect. Our results support the previous report which showed that rebamipide inhibited the adherence of neutrophils to endothelial cell.19
There are several limitations to our study. There are differences between naturally occurring GERD and iatrogenic GERD pathophysiologically. Large amount of rebamipide directly contacts esophagus due to delayed gastric emptying in animal model while only small amount of rebamipide contacts esophagus in human GERD without obstruction.
In conclusion, administration of rebamipide along with PPI modifies tight junction proteins of esophageal mucosa, which resulted in prevention of GERD in a rat model. Further studies are anticipated to validate the effect of rebamipide in human esophageal mucosa.
PPI, proton pump inhibitor; PPI+R, PPI plus rebamipide.
HPF, high power field.
PPI, proton pump inhibitor; PPI+R, PPI plus rebamipide.