钾竞争性酸阻滞剂与质子泵抑制剂治疗消化性溃疡病或手术后人工溃疡的疗效和安全性对比:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Wen-Xin Wang, Rui-Jie Li, Xiong-Fei Li
{"title":"钾竞争性酸阻滞剂与质子泵抑制剂治疗消化性溃疡病或手术后人工溃疡的疗效和安全性对比:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Wen-Xin Wang, Rui-Jie Li, Xiong-Fei Li","doi":"10.14309/ctg.0000000000000754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and postprocedural artificial ulcers are common ulcer disease. For them, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) are commonly used in clinical practice. PPI requires acid, time, and multiple doses, but P-CAB has fewer limitations. We compared the efficacy, safety, and prevention of PPI and P-CAB in PUD or artificial ulcer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov , Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for all studies. All eligible randomized controlled trials up to August 5, 2023, were included. Healing rates, shrinking rates, treatment-emergent adverse events rates, and recurrence rates were measured. Risk of bias, sensitivity analyses, and heterogeneity were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty researches that were selected from 926 screening studies and in total 6,551 participants were included. The risk ratio (RR) of healing rate with P-CABs vs PPIs of PUD at 4 weeks was RR 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.98-1.04). In addition, the healing rate distinction of artificial peptic ulcer was RR 1.04 (0.89-1.22), and the shrinking rate was mean difference 0.10 (-1.30-1.51). The result of treatment-emergent adverse event rate of PUD was RR 1.11 (0.91-1.35), and the delayed bleeding rate of artificial ulcer was RR 0.35 (0.16-0.80). The RR for recurrence rate of drug-related ulcers was 0.45 (0.25-0.81).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>P-CAB is noninferior in healing artificial ulcer and PUD, also the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. But, there may be a statistical advantage in holding back delayed bleeding and preventing drug-induced ulcers. More standardized experiments are needed for further applications and more precise conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10278,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"e1"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421725/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers vs Proton Pump Inhibitors for Peptic Ulcer Disease or Postprocedural Artificial Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Wen-Xin Wang, Rui-Jie Li, Xiong-Fei Li\",\"doi\":\"10.14309/ctg.0000000000000754\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and postprocedural artificial ulcers are common ulcer disease. For them, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) are commonly used in clinical practice. PPI requires acid, time, and multiple doses, but P-CAB has fewer limitations. We compared the efficacy, safety, and prevention of PPI and P-CAB in PUD or artificial ulcer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov , Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for all studies. All eligible randomized controlled trials up to August 5, 2023, were included. Healing rates, shrinking rates, treatment-emergent adverse events rates, and recurrence rates were measured. Risk of bias, sensitivity analyses, and heterogeneity were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty researches that were selected from 926 screening studies and in total 6,551 participants were included. The risk ratio (RR) of healing rate with P-CABs vs PPIs of PUD at 4 weeks was RR 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.98-1.04). In addition, the healing rate distinction of artificial peptic ulcer was RR 1.04 (0.89-1.22), and the shrinking rate was mean difference 0.10 (-1.30-1.51). The result of treatment-emergent adverse event rate of PUD was RR 1.11 (0.91-1.35), and the delayed bleeding rate of artificial ulcer was RR 0.35 (0.16-0.80). The RR for recurrence rate of drug-related ulcers was 0.45 (0.25-0.81).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>P-CAB is noninferior in healing artificial ulcer and PUD, also the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. But, there may be a statistical advantage in holding back delayed bleeding and preventing drug-induced ulcers. More standardized experiments are needed for further applications and more precise conclusions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10278,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421725/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000000754\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000000754","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

摘要

背景和目的:消化性溃疡病(PUD)和手术后人工溃疡是常见的溃疡病。对于它们,临床上常用的是质子泵抑制剂(PPI)和钾竞争性酸阻滞剂(P-CAB)。PPI 需要胃酸、时间和多次剂量,而 P-CAB 的局限性较少。我们比较了 PPI 和 P-CAB 对 PUD 和人工溃疡的疗效、安全性和预防效果:我们检索了 PubMed、ClinicalTrials.gov、Embase、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science 数据库中的所有研究。纳入了截至 2023 年 8 月 5 日所有符合条件的随机对照试验。对痊愈率、缩小率、治疗引发的不良事件发生率和复发率进行了测量。结果:从 926 项筛选研究中选出 20 项研究,共纳入 6567 名参与者。使用 P-CABs 和 PPIs 治疗 PUD 4 周的治愈率风险比(RR)为 RR 1.01(95% CI 0.98-1.04)。此外,人工消化性溃疡的愈合率差异为 RR 1.04(0.89-1.22),缩小率为 MD 0.10(-1.30-1.51)。PUD的TEAEs率结果为RR 1.11(0.91-1.35),人工溃疡的延迟出血率为RR 0.35(0.16-0.80)。药物相关溃疡复发率的RR为0.45(0.25-0.81):结论:P-CAB 在人工溃疡愈合方面与传统 PUD 相比不具劣势,在 TEAEs 发生率方面也不具劣势。结论:P-CAB 在人工溃疡愈合方面与传统 PUD 相比不具优势,在 TEAEs 发生率方面也不具优势,但在抑制延迟出血和预防药物性溃疡方面可能具有统计学优势。要进一步应用并得出更准确的结论,还需要更多标准化实验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and Safety of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers vs Proton Pump Inhibitors for Peptic Ulcer Disease or Postprocedural Artificial Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Introduction: Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and postprocedural artificial ulcers are common ulcer disease. For them, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) are commonly used in clinical practice. PPI requires acid, time, and multiple doses, but P-CAB has fewer limitations. We compared the efficacy, safety, and prevention of PPI and P-CAB in PUD or artificial ulcer.

Methods: We searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov , Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for all studies. All eligible randomized controlled trials up to August 5, 2023, were included. Healing rates, shrinking rates, treatment-emergent adverse events rates, and recurrence rates were measured. Risk of bias, sensitivity analyses, and heterogeneity were also performed.

Results: Twenty researches that were selected from 926 screening studies and in total 6,551 participants were included. The risk ratio (RR) of healing rate with P-CABs vs PPIs of PUD at 4 weeks was RR 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.98-1.04). In addition, the healing rate distinction of artificial peptic ulcer was RR 1.04 (0.89-1.22), and the shrinking rate was mean difference 0.10 (-1.30-1.51). The result of treatment-emergent adverse event rate of PUD was RR 1.11 (0.91-1.35), and the delayed bleeding rate of artificial ulcer was RR 0.35 (0.16-0.80). The RR for recurrence rate of drug-related ulcers was 0.45 (0.25-0.81).

Discussion: P-CAB is noninferior in healing artificial ulcer and PUD, also the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. But, there may be a statistical advantage in holding back delayed bleeding and preventing drug-induced ulcers. More standardized experiments are needed for further applications and more precise conclusions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology (CTG), published on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), is a peer-reviewed open access online journal dedicated to innovative clinical work in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. CTG hopes to fulfill an unmet need for clinicians and scientists by welcoming novel cohort studies, early-phase clinical trials, qualitative and quantitative epidemiologic research, hypothesis-generating research, studies of novel mechanisms and methodologies including public health interventions, and integration of approaches across organs and disciplines. CTG also welcomes hypothesis-generating small studies, methods papers, and translational research with clear applications to human physiology or disease. Colon and small bowel Endoscopy and novel diagnostics Esophagus Functional GI disorders Immunology of the GI tract Microbiology of the GI tract Inflammatory bowel disease Pancreas and biliary tract Liver Pathology Pediatrics Preventative medicine Nutrition/obesity Stomach.
×
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