Comparing the efficacy of different proton pump inhibitor dosing regimens for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学
Tyra Nguyen, Katherine Barnhill, Alex Zhornitskiy, Kyung Sang Yu, Garth Fuller, Katherine Makaroff, Brennan M R Spiegel, Gillian Gresham, Christopher V Almario
{"title":"Comparing the efficacy of different proton pump inhibitor dosing regimens for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Tyra Nguyen, Katherine Barnhill, Alex Zhornitskiy, Kyung Sang Yu, Garth Fuller, Katherine Makaroff, Brennan M R Spiegel, Gillian Gresham, Christopher V Almario","doi":"10.1093/dote/doae109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several proton pump inhibitor (PPI) dosing regimens that vary by strength and frequency (once [Qday] or twice [BID] daily) are available to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of various PPI regimens on esophageal healing and GERD and heartburn symptoms. To identify relevant studies, we searched EMBASE and PubMed in January 2023, which yielded 1381 records. Eligible RCTs included those that enrolled adults diagnosed with GERD and compared different dosing regimens within the same PPI. The outcomes were esophageal healing and resolution of GERD and heartburn symptoms within 12 weeks (i.e. short-term) and > 12 weeks (i.e. long-term). Meta-analysis pooling of the odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using the random-effects inverse-variance model. Overall, a total of 38 RCTs across 20 countries (N = 15,540 patients, mean age 50 years, 55% male) were included. Most PPI trials compared half standard dose Qday versus standard dose Qday or standard dose Qday versus double standard dose Qday. In general, when considering daily dosing, higher PPI strength significantly improved esophageal healing and relief of GERD symptoms both in the short- and long-term. Fewer trials compared Qday versus BID dosing; the impact of BID dosing on outcomes was inconsistent across the different PPI strength comparisons. In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed that increasing PPI Qday dosages led to improved GERD outcomes. However, few studies compared Qday to BID dosing; as twice daily PPI usage is common in clinical practice, further studies are warranted to determine whether such dosing improves clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":54277,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the Esophagus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the Esophagus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doae109","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several proton pump inhibitor (PPI) dosing regimens that vary by strength and frequency (once [Qday] or twice [BID] daily) are available to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of various PPI regimens on esophageal healing and GERD and heartburn symptoms. To identify relevant studies, we searched EMBASE and PubMed in January 2023, which yielded 1381 records. Eligible RCTs included those that enrolled adults diagnosed with GERD and compared different dosing regimens within the same PPI. The outcomes were esophageal healing and resolution of GERD and heartburn symptoms within 12 weeks (i.e. short-term) and > 12 weeks (i.e. long-term). Meta-analysis pooling of the odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using the random-effects inverse-variance model. Overall, a total of 38 RCTs across 20 countries (N = 15,540 patients, mean age 50 years, 55% male) were included. Most PPI trials compared half standard dose Qday versus standard dose Qday or standard dose Qday versus double standard dose Qday. In general, when considering daily dosing, higher PPI strength significantly improved esophageal healing and relief of GERD symptoms both in the short- and long-term. Fewer trials compared Qday versus BID dosing; the impact of BID dosing on outcomes was inconsistent across the different PPI strength comparisons. In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed that increasing PPI Qday dosages led to improved GERD outcomes. However, few studies compared Qday to BID dosing; as twice daily PPI usage is common in clinical practice, further studies are warranted to determine whether such dosing improves clinical outcomes.

比较不同质子泵抑制剂剂量方案治疗胃食管反流病的疗效:系统综述和荟萃分析。
几种质子泵抑制剂(PPI)的剂量方案根据强度和频率(每日一次[Qday]或两次[BID])不同,可用于治疗胃食管反流病(GERD)。我们对随机对照试验(rct)进行了最新的系统回顾和荟萃分析,评估了各种PPI方案对食管愈合、胃反流和胃灼热症状的影响。为了确定相关研究,我们检索了EMBASE和PubMed于2023年1月的1381条记录。合格的随机对照试验包括那些被诊断为胃食管反流的成年人,并在相同的PPI中比较不同的给药方案。结果是食管愈合,胃食管反流和胃灼热症状在12周(即短期)和12周(即长期)内得到缓解。使用随机效应反方差模型估计95%置信区间的优势比的荟萃分析池。总体而言,共纳入了来自20个国家的38项随机对照试验(N = 15540例患者,平均年龄50岁,55%为男性)。大多数PPI试验比较了半标准剂量Qday与标准剂量Qday或标准剂量Qday与双标准剂量Qday。总的来说,当考虑每日给药时,较高的PPI强度在短期和长期内都能显著改善食管愈合和缓解胃食管反流症状。较少的试验比较Qday与BID剂量;在不同PPI强度比较中,BID剂量对结果的影响不一致。总之,本荟萃分析显示,PPI每日剂量的增加可改善胃食管反流结局。然而,很少有研究将Qday与BID进行比较;由于每日两次PPI的使用在临床实践中很常见,因此需要进一步的研究来确定这种剂量是否能改善临床结果。
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
Diseases of the Esophagus
Diseases of the Esophagus Medicine-Gastroenterology
自引率
7.70%
发文量
568
期刊介绍: Diseases of the Esophagus covers all aspects of the esophagus - etiology, investigation and diagnosis, and both medical and surgical treatment.
×
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