Efficacy and safety of tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection: Real-world evidence.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Byung Wook Jung, Chan Hyuk Park, Yoon Suk Jung
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection: Real-world evidence.","authors":"Byung Wook Jung, Chan Hyuk Park, Yoon Suk Jung","doi":"10.1111/jgh.16719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Tegoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has been approved for Helicobacter pylori eradication in Korea. We compared the efficacy and safety of tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies for H. pylori eradication in real-world clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with H. pylori infection treated with tegoprazan- or rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies. The primary endpoint was H. pylori eradication rate. The secondary endpoint was adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 1474 included patients, 620 and 854 received tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies, respectively. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the eradication rates between the tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapy groups (74.7% [95% confidence interval [CI], 71.1-78.0%] vs 72.7% [95% CI, 69.7-75.6%], P = 0.400). Per-protocol analysis also demonstrated similar eradication rates for the groups (tegoprazan vs rabeprazole: 88.0% [95% CI, 85.0-90.6%] vs 85.9% [95% CI, 83.2-88.3%], P = 0.288). Although the overall adverse event rate did not differ between groups (tegoprazan vs rabeprazole, 39.2% vs 40.6%, P = 0.578), abdominal discomfort was less frequent in the tegoprazan group than in the rabeprazole group (1.3 vs 4.8%, P = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies for H. pylori eradication showed comparable efficacy and overall safety. The effect of tegoprazan on dose increases or other regimens, such as bismuth-containing quadruple therapy, should be further evaluated, because the efficacy of tegoprazan-based concomitant therapy may be suboptimal in regions where the clarithromycin resistance rate is high.</p>","PeriodicalId":15877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16719","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim: Tegoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has been approved for Helicobacter pylori eradication in Korea. We compared the efficacy and safety of tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies for H. pylori eradication in real-world clinical practice.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with H. pylori infection treated with tegoprazan- or rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies. The primary endpoint was H. pylori eradication rate. The secondary endpoint was adverse events.

Results: Among the 1474 included patients, 620 and 854 received tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies, respectively. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the eradication rates between the tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapy groups (74.7% [95% confidence interval [CI], 71.1-78.0%] vs 72.7% [95% CI, 69.7-75.6%], P = 0.400). Per-protocol analysis also demonstrated similar eradication rates for the groups (tegoprazan vs rabeprazole: 88.0% [95% CI, 85.0-90.6%] vs 85.9% [95% CI, 83.2-88.3%], P = 0.288). Although the overall adverse event rate did not differ between groups (tegoprazan vs rabeprazole, 39.2% vs 40.6%, P = 0.578), abdominal discomfort was less frequent in the tegoprazan group than in the rabeprazole group (1.3 vs 4.8%, P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Tegoprazan- and rabeprazole-based concomitant therapies for H. pylori eradication showed comparable efficacy and overall safety. The effect of tegoprazan on dose increases or other regimens, such as bismuth-containing quadruple therapy, should be further evaluated, because the efficacy of tegoprazan-based concomitant therapy may be suboptimal in regions where the clarithromycin resistance rate is high.

以替戈拉赞和雷贝拉唑为基础的幽门螺杆菌感染联合疗法的有效性和安全性:真实世界的证据。
背景和目的:特戈普拉赞是一种新型钾竞争性酸阻断剂,已在韩国获批用于根除幽门螺杆菌。我们比较了在实际临床实践中使用替戈普拉赞和雷贝拉唑同时根除幽门螺杆菌的疗效和安全性:我们回顾性分析了接受替戈普拉赞或雷贝拉唑联合疗法治疗的幽门螺杆菌感染患者的数据。主要终点是幽门螺杆菌根除率。次要终点是不良事件:在纳入的1474名患者中,分别有620人和854人接受了替戈拉赞和雷贝拉唑联合疗法。意向治疗分析显示,特戈普拉赞组和雷贝拉唑组的根除率没有明显差异(74.7% [95% 置信区间 [CI],71.1-78.0%] vs 72.7% [95% CI,69.7-75.6%],P = 0.400)。每方案分析还显示,两组的根除率相似(替戈普拉赞 vs 雷贝拉唑:88.0% [95% CI];雷贝拉唑:72.7% [95% CI];P = 0.400):88.0% [95% CI, 85.0-90.6%] vs 85.9% [95% CI, 83.2-88.3%], P = 0.288)。虽然两组的总体不良事件发生率没有差异(替戈普拉赞 vs 雷贝拉唑,39.2% vs 40.6%,P = 0.578),但替戈普拉赞组的腹部不适发生率低于雷贝拉唑组(1.3% vs 4.8%,P = 0.001):结论:以替戈普拉赞和雷贝拉唑为基础的根除幽门螺杆菌联合疗法的疗效和总体安全性相当。由于在克拉霉素耐药率较高的地区,以替戈拉赞为基础的联合疗法的疗效可能并不理想,因此应进一步评估替戈拉赞对剂量增加或其他疗法(如含铋四联疗法)的影响。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
326
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is produced 12 times per year and publishes peer-reviewed original papers, reviews and editorials concerned with clinical practice and research in the fields of hepatology, gastroenterology and endoscopy. Papers cover the medical, radiological, pathological, biochemical, physiological and historical aspects of the subject areas. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信