Liu Ligang, Li Fang, Shi Hekai, Nahata Milap C
Institute of Therapeutic Innovations and Outcomes (ITIO), College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Department of Pharmacy, Beijing You An Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2023 Feb 7;12(2):346. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12020346.
The eradication of infection remains challenging due to increasing bacterial resistance. Resistance rates to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin were higher than 30% in the USA, making current therapies less effective. Vonoprazan triple therapy (VAC) has demonstrated similar efficacy and safety profiles compared to PPI-based triple therapy (PPI). However, the eradication rate of vonoprazan dual therapy (VA) for infection in comparison to VAC, and PPI was poorly established. Electronic databases were searched up to 6 October 2022, to identify studies examining the safety and efficacy of VA compared to VAC and PPI. Six studies were included. For empiric therapies among treatment naïve patients, VA, VAC, and PPI did not achieve high cure rates (>90%). The comparative efficacy ranking showed VAC was the most effective therapy, followed by VA, and PPI. The results were similar for clarithromycin-resistant infections. The comparative safety ranking showed VA ranked first, whereas PPI triple therapy was the least safe regimen. These findings should guide the selection of the most effective and safe treatment and conduct additional studies to determine the place of vonoprazan dual versus triple therapies in patients with from various countries across the world.
由于细菌耐药性不断增加,根除感染仍然具有挑战性。在美国,对克拉霉素、甲硝唑和左氧氟沙星的耐药率高于30%,使得当前的治疗效果降低。与基于质子泵抑制剂(PPI)的三联疗法相比,沃克帕唑三联疗法(VAC)已显示出相似的疗效和安全性。然而,与VAC和PPI相比,沃克帕唑双联疗法(VA)对感染的根除率尚不明确。检索了截至2022年10月6日的电子数据库,以确定比较VA与VAC和PPI安全性和疗效的研究。纳入了六项研究。对于初治患者的经验性治疗,VA、VAC和PPI均未达到高治愈率(>90%)。比较疗效排名显示,VAC是最有效的治疗方法,其次是VA和PPI。对于克拉霉素耐药感染,结果相似。比较安全性排名显示,VA排名第一,而PPI三联疗法是最不安全的方案。这些发现应指导选择最有效和安全的治疗方法,并开展更多研究以确定沃克帕唑双联疗法与三联疗法在全球各国感染患者中的地位。