Placebo
DrugTAK-438 placebo-matching tablets
NCT Number: NCT02954848
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral TAK-438 10 mg once-daily in the treatment of non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (NERD).
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me20 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Phase 3
Abiko, Chiba, Japan
A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multi-center study will be conducted to verify the superiority of TAK-438 (TAK-438 10 mg, once daily, 4 weeks) to placebo (placebo, once daily, 4 weeks) in participants with non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (NERD).
The study consists of a 1-week, single-blind run-in period and a 4-week, double-blind treatment period. The participants will receive the study drug (TAK-438 placebo tablet) for the 1-week single-blind run-in period. After the run-in period, eligible participants will be randomized into TAK-438 10 mg or placebo treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio. The randomized participants will receive the assigned study drug (TAK-438 10 mg tablet or placebo tablet) for the 4-week double-blind treatment period.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
To allow efficacy evaluation in the participants with Grade N as well as in those with Grade M, the target number of participants in each grade is at least 30% of the total number of participants. Enrollment of patients with either Grade N or M will end when the number of enrolled participants with each grade exceeds 332, or 70% of the total planned number of participants.
Exclusion criteria
TAK-438 placebo-matching tablets
TAK-438 tablets
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Heartburn symptoms were collected by participant diaries. Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom: 0, No hindrance to daily activities: 1], With symptom [Mild: 2, Moderate: 3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with the higher scores reflecting the greater severity. Reported data was the percentage of days for each group, calculated by the number of days without heartburn divided by the number of days of treatment period.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Heartburn symptoms were collected by participant diaries. Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom: 0, No hindrance to daily activities: 1], With symptom [Mild: 2, Moderate: 3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with the higher scores reflecting the greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement was calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Symptom improvement was defined as symptoms experienced on less than 2 days of the last 7 days. The cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 24 and is reported for the following time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Data not collected were shown as NA = Not Applicable.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom: 0, No hindrance to daily activities: 1], With symptom [Mild: 2, Moderate: 3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with the higher scores reflecting the greater severity. The severity of heartburn was calculated by the number of severity score in daily diaries.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Participants recorded the presence and severity of heartburn in a daily participant diary. Percentage of days without heartburn was calculated in each subgroup of the response (improved or not improved) according to Criteria 1, i.e. Improved: the participants experienced heartburn on less than 2 days of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]; Not improved: the participants experienced heartburn on 2 days or more of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14] and Criteria 2, i.e. Improved: the proportion of days the participants experienced heartburn during the treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was lower than that during the run-in period; Not improved: the proportion of days the participants experienced heartburn during the treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was equal to or larger than that during the run-in period.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 22
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with the higher scores reflecting the greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement was calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. The response was evaluated per Criteria 1, i.e. Improved: the participants experienced heartburn on less than 2 days of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]; Not improved: the participants experienced heartburn on 2 days or more of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]. Cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 22 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Data not collected were shown as NA = Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with the higher scores reflecting the greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement is calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. The response was evaluated per Criteria 1, i.e. Improved: the participants experienced heartburn on less than 2 days of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]; Not improved: the participants experienced heartburn on 2 days or more of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]. Cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 24 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. Data not collected were shown as NA = Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with higher scores reflecting the greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Response evaluated per Criteria 2, i.e. Improved: proportion of days participant experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was lower than that during run-in period; Not improved: proportion of days participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was equal to or larger than that during the run-in period. Cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 24 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Data not collected were shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with higher scores reflecting the greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. The response evaluated per Criteria 2, i.e. Improved: proportion of days participant experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was lower than that during run-in period; Not improved: proportion of days participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was equal to or larger than that during run-in period. Cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 24 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Data not collected shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom: 0, No hindrance to daily activities: 1], With symptom [Mild: 2, Moderate: 3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, the higher scores indicates greater severity. The severity was calculated in each subgroup of response (improved or not improved) according to Criteria 1, i.e. Improved: participants experienced heartburn on less than 2 days of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]; Not improved: participants experienced heartburn on 2 days or more of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14] and Criteria 2, i.e. Improved: proportion of days the participants experienced heartburn during the treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was lower than that during the run-in period; Not improved: proportion of days the participants experienced heartburn during the treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was equal to or larger than that during the run-in period.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Heartburn symptoms were collected by participant diaries. Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom: 0, No hindrance to daily activities: 1], With symptom [Mild: 2, Moderate: 3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, higher scores indicates greater severity. The percentage was calculated in each subgroup of the endoscopic findings where Grade N: normal mucosa; Grade M: minimal changes to the mucosa, such as erythema and/or whitish turbidity; Grade A: non-confluent mucosal breaks <5mm in length; Grade B: non-confluent mucosal breaks ≥5mm in length; Grade C: confluent mucosal breaks <75% circumferential; Grade D: confluent mucosal breaks >75% circumferential.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. The score range was 0-4, higher scores indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Cumulative rate calculated in subgroup of Grade N per modified LA classification. Modified LA classification Grade N: normal mucosa; Grade M: minimal changes to mucosa; Grade A: nonconfluent mucosal breaks <5mm in length; Grade B: non-confluent mucosal breaks ≥5mm in length; Grade C: confluent mucosal breaks <75% circumferential; Grade D: confluent mucosal breaks >75% circumferential. Cumulative data collected between Day 0 and 24 and reported for time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. Data not collected shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher scores indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Cumulative rate calculated in subgroup of Grade M per modified LA classification. Modified LA classification Grade N: normal mucosa; Grade M: minimal changes to mucosa; Grade A: nonconfluent mucosal breaks <5mm in length; Grade B: non-confluent mucosal breaks ≥5mm in length; Grade C: confluent mucosal breaks <75% circumferential; Grade D: confluent mucosal breaks >75% circumferential. Cumulative data collected between Day 0 and 24 and reported for time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. Data not collected shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Heartburn symptoms were collected by participant diaries. Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with the higher scores reflecting the greater severity. The severity of heartburn was calculated in each subgroup of the endoscopic findings where Grade N: normal mucosa; Grade M: minimal changes to the mucosa, such as erythema and/or whitish turbidity; Grade A: non-confluent mucosal breaks <5mm in length; Grade B: non-confluent mucosal breaks ≥5mm in length; Grade C: confluent mucosal breaks <75% circumferential; Grade D: confluent mucosal breaks >75% circumferential.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Heartburn symptoms were collected by participant diaries. Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom: 0, No hindrance to daily activities: 1], With symptom [Mild: 2, Moderate: 3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, higher scores indicates greater severity. The percentage was calculated in each subgroup (response; Grade N and improved, response; Grade N and not improved, response; Grade M and improved, response; Grade M and not improved) according to Criteria 1 and 2. The modified LA classification Grade N indicates the participants with normal mucosa and Grade M indicates the participants with minimal changes to the mucosa.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 22
Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher scores indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Response was evaluated per Criteria 1, i.e. Improved: participants experienced heartburn on less than 2 days of 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]; Not improved: participants experienced heartburn on 2 days or more of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]. Modified LA classification Grade N: normal mucosa and Grade M: minimal changes to the mucosa. Cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 22 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 19, 20, and 22. Data not collected were shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher scores indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Response was evaluated per Criteria 1, i.e. Improved: participants experienced heartburn on less than 2 days of 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]; Not improved: participants experienced heartburn on 2 days or more of 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]. Modified LA classification Grade N indicates participants with normal mucosa and Grade M indicates participants with minimal changes to mucosa). Cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 22 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. Data not collected were shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 22
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher score indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Response was evaluated per Criteria 1, i.e. Improved: participants experienced heartburn on less than 2 days of 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]; Not improved: participants experienced heartburn on 2 days or more of 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 through Day 14]. Modified LA classification Grade N indicates participants with normal mucosa and Grade M indicates participants with minimal changes to mucosa). Cumulative data collected between Day 0 and Day 22 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22. Data not collected were shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher score indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Response evaluated per Criteria 1, i.e. Improved: participants experienced heartburn on < 2 days of the 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 to 14]; Not improved: participants experienced heartburn on >= 2 days of 7 days prior to Week 2 [Day 8 to 14]. Modified LA classification Grade N indicates participants with normal mucosa and Grade M indicates participants with minimal changes to mucosa). Cumulative data collected between Day 0 and 24 and reported for following time points: Days 0, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Data not collected were shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 22
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher score indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Response was evaluated per Criteria 2, i.e. Improved: participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was lower than during run-in period; Not improved: participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was equal to or larger than during run-in period. Modified LA classification Grade N: normal mucosa and Grade M: minimal changes to mucosa). Cumulative data collected between Day 0 and 22 and reported for following time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Data not collected shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher score indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement was calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Response was evaluated per Criteria 2, i.e. Improved: participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was lower than during run-in period; Not improved: participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was equal to or larger than during run-in period. Modified LA classification Grade N: normal mucosa and Grade M: minimal changes to mucosa. Cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 24 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Data not collected were shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 24
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher score indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Response was evaluated per Criteria 2, i.e. Improved: participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was lower than during run-in period; Not improved: participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was equal or larger than during run-in period. Modified LA classification Grade N: normal mucosa and Grade M: minimal changes to mucosa. Cumulative data collected between Day 0 and 24 and reported for following time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Data not collected shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Day 0 to Day 23
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher score indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Response was evaluated per Criteria 2, i.e. Improved: participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was lower than during run-in period; Not improved: participants experienced heartburn during treatment period up to Week 2 [Day 14] was equal to or larger than during run-in period. Modified LA classification Grade N: normal mucosa and Grade M: minimal changes to mucosa). Cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 23 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. Data not collected shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Heartburn symptoms were collected by participant diaries. Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom: 0, No hindrance to daily activities: 1], With symptom [Mild: 2, Moderate: 3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with the higher scores reflecting the greater severity. The mean severity of heartburn was calculated in each subgroup (response; Grade N and improved, response; Grade N and not improved, response; Grade M and improved, response; Grade M and not improved) according to criteria 1 and 2. The modified LA classification Grade N indicates the participants with normal mucosa and Grade M indicates the participants with minimal changes to the mucosa.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Heartburn symptoms were collected by participant diaries. Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom: 0, No hindrance to daily activities: 1], With symptom [Mild: 2, Moderate: 3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, higher score indicates greater severity. The percentage was calculated in each subgroup of the response (improved or not improved) in the participants who had a medication history of any of acid suppressants. The acid suppressants include proton pump inhibitors [PPIs], histamine H2-receptor antagonists [H2RAs], or other agents [anticholinergics or anti-gastrin drugs].
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher score indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Cumulative improvement rate calculated in each subgroup of the response (improved or not improved) in participants who had medication history of any of acid suppressants. Acid suppressants include proton pump inhibitors [PPIs], histamine H2-receptor antagonists [H2RAs], or other agents [anticholinergics or anti-gastrin drugs]. Cumulative data collected between Day 0 and Day 23 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. Data not collected were shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Participants recorded presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom:0, No hindrance to daily activities:1], With symptom [Mild:2, Moderate:3, Severe:4]) of heartburn in participant diary. Score range was 0-4, higher score indicates greater severity. Cumulative rate of improvement calculated as percentage of participants who experienced symptom improvement. Cumulative improvement rate calculated in each subgroup of the response (improved or not improved) in participants who had medication history of any of acid suppressants. Acid suppressants include proton pump inhibitors [PPIs], histamine H2-receptor antagonists [H2RAs], or other agents [anticholinergics or anti-gastrin drugs]. Cumulative data was collected between Day 0 and Day 23 and is reported for following time points: Days 0, 1, 5, 9, 16, 19, and 20. Data not collected were shown as NA=Not Applicable.
Time frame: Up to Week 4
Heartburn symptoms were collected by participant diaries. Participants recorded the presence and severity (Without symptom [No symptom: 0, No hindrance to daily activities: 1], With symptom [Mild: 2, Moderate: 3, Severe: 4]) of heartburn in a daily participant diary. The score range was 0-4, with the higher scores reflecting the greater severity. The mean severity of heartburn was calculated in each subgroup of the response (improved or not improved) in the participants who had a medication history of any of acid suppressants. The acid suppressants include proton pump inhibitors [PPIs], histamine H2-receptor antagonists [H2RAs], or other agents [anticholinergics or anti-gastrin drugs].
Takeda
Industry
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter, Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Oral TAK-438 10 mg Once-daily in the Treatment of Non-Erosive Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT01047800
Colonic Diseases, Colonic Diseases, Functional
Hong Kong
View Trial DetailsNCT01474369
Non-erosive Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Nagoya, Aichi-ken, Japan
View Trial DetailsNCT00165672
Non-erosive Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Nagoya, Aichi-ken, Japan
View Trial DetailsNCT00165646
Non-erosive Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Aichi-Gun, Aichi-ken, Japan
View Trial Details