Efficacy and Safety of Omeprazole for the Treatment of Acid Peptic Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1155/2024/9990554
Mohan Prasad VG, Lynne V. McFarland, Hemant P. Thacker, Rajesh Puri, Parimal S. Lawate
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Omeprazole for the Treatment of Acid Peptic Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Mohan Prasad VG,&nbsp;Lynne V. McFarland,&nbsp;Hemant P. Thacker,&nbsp;Rajesh Puri,&nbsp;Parimal S. Lawate","doi":"10.1155/2024/9990554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Background Aim</i>. To compare the efficacy of omeprazole to other proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) or placebo for the treatment of acid peptic disorders (APDs) using a comprehensive literature search including hard-to-access journals and non-English articles. <i>Methods</i>. PubMed, Google Scholar, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched (from inception to March 2023) for trials comparing omeprazole to other types of PPIs or placebo for the treatment APD. Efficacy was analyzed separately for erosive diseases and nonerosive diseases. Primary outcomes included improvement of APD symptoms and frequency of ulcer or erosion healing. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, cost effectiveness, nocturnal acid breakthrough, and length of stay if hospitalized. Random and fixed-effects models were used to determine estimates of efficacy. <i>Results</i>. Thirty-one eligible trials (<i>N</i> = 10,539 participants) were analyzed, including 12 articles not typically included in previous reviews due to translation or journal access issues. Omeprazole significantly improved heartburn compared to placebo (RR = 2.47, 95% CI: 2.13 and 2.86, and <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and was equivalent to the other five types of PPI. Omeprazole had significantly fewer patients reporting adverse events versus placebo (11% versus 31%, respectively) and other PPIs. Omeprazole was the most cost-effective PPI compared to the other types of PPIs in India. <i>Conclusions</i>. Omeprazole continues to be an effective proton-pump inhibitor to treat patients with acid peptic disorders and was well tolerated. Omeprazole was significantly better than placebo and was equivalent with other PPIs for curing heartburn and was equivalent to other PPIs for the healing of ulcers or erosions in addition to being the most cost-effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/9990554","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Aim. To compare the efficacy of omeprazole to other proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) or placebo for the treatment of acid peptic disorders (APDs) using a comprehensive literature search including hard-to-access journals and non-English articles. Methods. PubMed, Google Scholar, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched (from inception to March 2023) for trials comparing omeprazole to other types of PPIs or placebo for the treatment APD. Efficacy was analyzed separately for erosive diseases and nonerosive diseases. Primary outcomes included improvement of APD symptoms and frequency of ulcer or erosion healing. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, cost effectiveness, nocturnal acid breakthrough, and length of stay if hospitalized. Random and fixed-effects models were used to determine estimates of efficacy. Results. Thirty-one eligible trials (N = 10,539 participants) were analyzed, including 12 articles not typically included in previous reviews due to translation or journal access issues. Omeprazole significantly improved heartburn compared to placebo (RR = 2.47, 95% CI: 2.13 and 2.86, and p < 0.001) and was equivalent to the other five types of PPI. Omeprazole had significantly fewer patients reporting adverse events versus placebo (11% versus 31%, respectively) and other PPIs. Omeprazole was the most cost-effective PPI compared to the other types of PPIs in India. Conclusions. Omeprazole continues to be an effective proton-pump inhibitor to treat patients with acid peptic disorders and was well tolerated. Omeprazole was significantly better than placebo and was equivalent with other PPIs for curing heartburn and was equivalent to other PPIs for the healing of ulcers or erosions in addition to being the most cost-effective.

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
奥美拉唑治疗胃酸过多症的有效性和安全性:系统回顾与元分析
背景 目的通过全面的文献检索,包括难以获取的期刊和非英文文章,比较奥美拉唑与其他质子泵抑制剂(PPI)或安慰剂治疗胃酸过多症(APD)的疗效。研究方法检索了PubMed、谷歌学术和中国国家知识基础设施(从开始到2023年3月)中奥美拉唑与其他类型PPI或安慰剂治疗胃酸过多症的对比试验。分别分析了侵蚀性疾病和非侵蚀性疾病的疗效。主要结果包括 APD 症状的改善和溃疡或糜烂愈合的频率。次要结果包括不良事件、成本效益、夜间胃酸突破以及住院时间。随机和固定效应模型用于确定疗效估计值。结果。对 31 项符合条件的试验(N = 10,539 名参与者)进行了分析,其中包括 12 篇因翻译或期刊获取问题而未被纳入以往综述的文章。与安慰剂相比,奥美拉唑能明显改善胃灼热(RR = 2.47,95% CI:2.13 和 2.86),与其他五种 PPI 的疗效相当。与安慰剂(分别为 11% 和 31%)和其他 PPIs 相比,奥美拉唑的不良事件报告患者明显较少。在印度,与其他类型的 PPI 相比,奥美拉唑是最具成本效益的 PPI。结论。奥美拉唑仍然是治疗胃酸过多症患者的有效质子泵抑制剂,而且耐受性良好。在治疗胃灼热方面,奥美拉唑的疗效明显优于安慰剂;在治愈溃疡或糜烂方面,奥美拉唑的疗效与其他 PPIs 相当,而且最具成本效益。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
High Prevalence of Unrecorded Stage 3 Chronic Kidney Disease in Australia, Brazil, Canada, England, and Spain: The Multinational, Observational REVEAL-CKD Study Influencing Factors for Depression and Depression Aggravation in Hospitalized Elderly Patients With Chronic Heart Failure Blood Urea Nitrogen to Albumin Ratio Was Associated With Mortality in Critically Ill Septic Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Propensity–Adjusted Analysis Affordability of Original and Generic Antihypertensive Drugs Under the National Centralized Drug Procurement Policy and Basic Medical Insurance System: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Xi’an, China Guidelines for Returning to Dance Following Concussion: Adaptations From Sport Concussion Literature
×
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