• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

钾竞争性酸阻滞剂与质子泵抑制剂治疗消化性溃疡病或术后人工溃疡的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。

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.

机构信息

The First Clinical College of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China .

出版信息

Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2024 Sep 1;15(9):e1. doi: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000754.

DOI:10.14309/ctg.0000000000000754
PMID:39072507
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11421725/
Abstract

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.

摘要

简介

消化性溃疡病(PUD)和术后人工溃疡是常见的溃疡病。质子泵抑制剂(PPI)和钾竞争酸阻滞剂(P-CAB)是临床上常用的药物。PPI 需要酸性、时间和多次剂量,但 P-CAB 的限制较少。我们比较了 PUD 或人工溃疡中 PPI 和 P-CAB 的疗效、安全性和预防作用。

方法

我们检索了 PubMed、ClinicalTrials.gov、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science 数据库中的所有研究。纳入所有截止 2023 年 8 月 5 日的随机对照试验。测量愈合率、缩小率、治疗中出现的不良事件发生率和复发率。还进行了风险偏倚、敏感性分析和异质性分析。

结果

从 926 项筛选研究中选出 20 项研究,共纳入 6551 名参与者。与 PPI 相比,P-CAB 在 4 周时治疗 PUD 的愈合率的风险比(RR)为 1.01(95%置信区间 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),缩小率为平均差 0.10(-1.30-1.51)。PUD 的治疗中出现的不良事件发生率的结果为 RR 1.11(0.91-1.35),人工溃疡的迟发性出血率为 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)。

讨论

P-CAB 在愈合人工溃疡和 PUD 方面非劣效,且治疗中出现的不良事件发生率也较低。但在抑制迟发性出血和预防药物诱导性溃疡方面可能存在统计学优势。需要更多标准化的实验来进一步应用和得出更精确的结论。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/fe5bd6f1f4c4/ct9-15-e1a-g009.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/e81202669fc2/ct9-15-e1a-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/35e09409fad9/ct9-15-e1a-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/ead5dc04bab5/ct9-15-e1a-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/2920763370e6/ct9-15-e1a-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/914cb17879cd/ct9-15-e1a-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/abfdd8d9a655/ct9-15-e1a-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/e60bb2385134/ct9-15-e1a-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/704cabe99404/ct9-15-e1a-g008.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/fe5bd6f1f4c4/ct9-15-e1a-g009.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/e81202669fc2/ct9-15-e1a-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/35e09409fad9/ct9-15-e1a-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/ead5dc04bab5/ct9-15-e1a-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/2920763370e6/ct9-15-e1a-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/914cb17879cd/ct9-15-e1a-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/abfdd8d9a655/ct9-15-e1a-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/e60bb2385134/ct9-15-e1a-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/704cabe99404/ct9-15-e1a-g008.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97fc/11421725/fe5bd6f1f4c4/ct9-15-e1a-g009.jpg

相似文献

1
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.钾竞争性酸阻滞剂与质子泵抑制剂治疗消化性溃疡病或术后人工溃疡的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2024 Sep 1;15(9):e1. doi: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000754.
2
Efficacy and Safety of Potassium-competitive Acid Blockers Versus Proton Pump Inhibitors in Treating Erosive Esophagitis: A Meta-analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.钾竞争性酸阻滞剂与质子泵抑制剂治疗糜烂性食管炎的疗效和安全性:基于随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2024 Oct 1;58(9):841-850. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000002052.
3
Vonoprazan vs. Proton Pump Inhibitors for Treatment and Prevention of Gastric and/or Duodenal Ulcers: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Vonoprazan 与质子泵抑制剂治疗和预防胃及/或十二指肠溃疡的比较:系统评价与荟萃分析。
Dig Dis Sci. 2024 Oct;69(10):3863-3874. doi: 10.1007/s10620-024-08593-5. Epub 2024 Sep 18.
4
Comparison of different regimens of proton pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding.不同质子泵抑制剂方案治疗急性消化性溃疡出血的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 12;2013(6):CD007999. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007999.pub2.
5
Efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blockers versus proton pump inhibitors as Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.钾离子竞争性酸阻滞剂与质子泵抑制剂作为幽门螺杆菌根除治疗的疗效和安全性:随机临床试验的荟萃分析。
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2022 Jul 7;77:100058. doi: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2022.100058. eCollection 2022.
6
Comparative efficiency and safety of potassium competitive acid blockers Lansoprazole in peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.钾离子竞争性酸阻滞剂与兰索拉唑治疗消化性溃疡的比较疗效及安全性:一项系统评价和Meta分析
Front Pharmacol. 2024 Jan 11;14:1304552. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1304552. eCollection 2023.
7
Vonoprazan versus proton pump inhibitors for the management of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced artificial ulcer: A systematic review with meta-analysis.沃克替尼与质子泵抑制剂用于治疗胃内镜黏膜下剥离术后人工溃疡:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jun;98(24):e15860. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015860.
8
Vonoprazan vs proton pump inhibitors in treating post-endoscopic submucosal dissection ulcers and preventing bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.沃克酰胺与质子泵抑制剂治疗内镜黏膜下剥离术后溃疡及预防出血的比较:一项随机对照试验和观察性研究的荟萃分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Feb;99(9):e19357. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019357.
9
Efficacy and Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors in the Long-Term Aspirin Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.质子泵抑制剂在长期使用阿司匹林患者中的疗效和安全性:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Am J Ther. 2017 Sep/Oct;24(5):e559-e569. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000000637.
10
Comparison of the Use of Vonoprazan and Proton Pump Inhibitors for the Treatment of Peptic Ulcers Resulting from Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.经内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗后消化性溃疡中使用 vonoprazan 与质子泵抑制剂的效果比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Med Sci Monit. 2019 Feb 13;25:1169-1176. doi: 10.12659/MSM.911886.

引用本文的文献

1
Clinical pharmacokinetics of potassium competitive acid blockers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.钾离子竞争性酸阻滞剂的临床药代动力学:系统评价与荟萃分析。
Front Pharmacol. 2025 Jul 8;16:1580969. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1580969. eCollection 2025.
2
Management of gastrointestinal bleed in the intensive care setting, an updated literature review.重症监护环境下胃肠道出血的管理:最新文献综述
World J Crit Care Med. 2025 Mar 9;14(1):101639. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v14.i1.101639.
3
Cyanidin and Cyanidin-3-Glucoside Alleviate Peptic Ulcer Disease: Insights from in vitro, and in vivo Studies.
矢车菊素和矢车菊素-3-葡萄糖苷缓解消化性溃疡病:来自体外和体内研究的见解
Drug Des Devel Ther. 2025 Feb 7;19:841-856. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S500645. eCollection 2025.