A systematic review with meta-analysis: Efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blocker compared with proton pump inhibitor in the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis

IF 1.7 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY JGH Open Pub Date : 2024-03-22 DOI:10.1002/jgh3.13053
Daniel M Simadibrata, Elvira Lesmana, Muhammad I A Pratama, Adrianus J Sugiharta, Afiah S Winarizal, Yeong Y Lee, Ari F Syam
{"title":"A systematic review with meta-analysis: Efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blocker compared with proton pump inhibitor in the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis","authors":"Daniel M Simadibrata,&nbsp;Elvira Lesmana,&nbsp;Muhammad I A Pratama,&nbsp;Adrianus J Sugiharta,&nbsp;Afiah S Winarizal,&nbsp;Yeong Y Lee,&nbsp;Ari F Syam","doi":"10.1002/jgh3.13053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the mainstay therapy for the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis (EE). It is unknown whether potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) are more efficacious and safer than PPIs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCABs to PPIs in the maintenance of healing rates of endoscopically proven healed EE and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until 3 February 2024, were included. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis was performed to pool primary efficacy outcome (maintenance of healing rates at week 24) and safety data (any treatment-emergent adverse event or TEAE). The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Four RCTs with a total of 2554 patients were eligible for inclusion. All trials were of low risk of bias. Compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, the maintenance rates of healed EE at week 24 were significantly higher with vonoprazan 10 mg (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.07–1.19) and vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.10–1.21). Likewise, compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, any TEAEs were significantly greater with vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01–1.20) but not vonoprazan 10 mg.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Vonoprazan 10 and 20 mg were superior to lansoprazole 15 mg in the maintenance of the healing of EE. Any TEAEs were greater with vonoprazan 20 mg.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":45861,"journal":{"name":"JGH Open","volume":"8 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgh3.13053","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JGH Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgh3.13053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the mainstay therapy for the maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis (EE). It is unknown whether potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) are more efficacious and safer than PPIs.

Methods

Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCABs to PPIs in the maintenance of healing rates of endoscopically proven healed EE and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until 3 February 2024, were included. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis was performed to pool primary efficacy outcome (maintenance of healing rates at week 24) and safety data (any treatment-emergent adverse event or TEAE). The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool.

Results

Four RCTs with a total of 2554 patients were eligible for inclusion. All trials were of low risk of bias. Compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, the maintenance rates of healed EE at week 24 were significantly higher with vonoprazan 10 mg (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.07–1.19) and vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.10–1.21). Likewise, compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, any TEAEs were significantly greater with vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01–1.20) but not vonoprazan 10 mg.

Conclusion

Vonoprazan 10 and 20 mg were superior to lansoprazole 15 mg in the maintenance of the healing of EE. Any TEAEs were greater with vonoprazan 20 mg.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统回顾与荟萃分析:钾竞争性酸阻滞剂与质子泵抑制剂在维持侵蚀性食管炎痊愈中的疗效和安全性比较
导言 质子泵抑制剂(PPI)是维持侵蚀性食管炎(EE)痊愈的主要疗法。目前尚不清楚钾竞争性酸阻滞剂(PCAB)是否比 PPI 更有效、更安全。 方法 仅纳入 2024 年 2 月 3 日前在 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 CENTRAL 索引中收录的、比较 PCAB 与 PPI 在维持内镜证实痊愈的 EE 愈合率方面效果的随机对照试验(RCT)。采用固定效应模型进行荟萃分析,以汇总主要疗效结果(第 24 周的愈合率维持率)和安全性数据(任何治疗突发不良事件或 TEAE)。偏倚风险采用 Cochrane 的偏倚风险 2 (RoB2) 工具进行评估。 结果 共纳入了四项 RCT,共 2554 名患者。所有试验的偏倚风险均较低。与兰索拉唑15毫克相比,冯诺普拉赞10毫克(RR为1.13;95% CI为1.07-1.19)和冯诺普拉赞20毫克(RR为1.15;95% CI为1.10-1.21)在第24周时的EE痊愈维持率明显更高。同样,与兰索拉唑 15 毫克相比,沃诺普拉赞 20 毫克(RR 1.10;95% CI 1.01-1.20)的 TEAEs 明显高于沃诺普拉赞 10 毫克(RR 1.10;95% CI 1.01-1.20)。 结论 在维持 EE 愈合方面,沃诺普拉赞 10 毫克和 20 毫克优于兰索拉唑 15 毫克。沃诺普拉赞 20 毫克的 TEAEs 更多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JGH Open
JGH Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outcomes and validity of risk stratification tools for endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer in Western Australia Influence of patient characteristics on Helicobacter pylori eradication with Vonoprazan: A subgroup analysis of the pHalcon-HP trial Association between serum alder-specific immunoglobulin E positivity and seasonal onset of eosinophilic esophagitis Metastatic renal cell carcinoma presenting as gastrointestinal bleeding Feasibility of transperineal intestinal ultrasound in assessing ulcerative proctitis during pregnancy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1