Dataset Information

Potent Potassium-competitive Acid Blockers: A New Era for the Treatment of Acid-related Diseases.

ABSTRACT: Conventional proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are used as a first-line therapy to treat acid-related diseases worldwide. However, they have a number of limitations including slow onset of action, influence by cytochrome P450 polymorphisms, unsatisfactory effects at night, and instability in acidic conditions. Alternative formulations of conventional PPIs have been developed to overcome these problems; however, these drugs have only introduced small advantages for controlling acid secretion compared to conventional PPIs. Potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) were developed and have beneficial effects including rapid, long-lasting, and reversible inhibition of the gastric hydrogen potassium ATPase, the proton pump of the stomach. Vonoprazan was recently innovated as a novel, orally active P-CAB. It is currently indicated for the treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers, reflux esophagitis, and prevention of low-dose aspirin- or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related gastric and duodenal ulcer recurrence in Japan. Vonoprazan does not require enteric coating as it is acid-stable, and it can be taken without food because it is quickly absorbed. Vonoprazan accumulates in parietal cells under both acidic and neutral conditions. It does not require an acidic environment for activation, has long-term stability at the site of action, and has satisfactory safety and tolerability. Thus, vonoprazan may address the unmet medical need for the treatment of acid-related diseases.

SUBMITTER: Oshima T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6034668 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsPotassium-Competitive Acid Blockers (P-CABs) have been used in Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapies in recent years. However, the efficacy and safety of P-CABs compared to Proton-Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) in this setting remain controversial.MethodsThe efficacy and safety of P-CABs and PPIs for H. pylori eradication were compared in a meta-analysis based on a systematic literature search of major electronic databases for relevant Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).ResultsSeven studies and 1,168 patients were included. The pooled eradication rate determined by Intention-To-Treat (ITT) analysis was 90.2% for P-CAB-based and 75.5% for PPI-based triple therapy (pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.17 [1.08-1.28], p < 0.001). The Per-Protocol (PP) analysis also demonstrated significant superiority of P-CABs (pooled eradication rate = 92.4% vs. 77.8%; pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.14 [1.03-1.26], p < 0.01). In a subgroup evaluation, P-CABs were significantly better than PPIs as a first-line eradication therapy, in both the ITT analysis (pooled eradication rate = 91.8% vs. 76.4%; pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.18 [1.10-1.28], p < 0.0001) and the PP analysis (pooled eradication rate = 93.0% vs. 78.6%; pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.13 [1.02-1.26], p < 0.05). However, P-CABs were not superior to PPIs when administered as salvage therapy, as determined in the ITT (75.0% vs. 66.0%, pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.11 [0.69-1.78], p = 0.66) and PP (85.7% vs. 70.0%, pooled RR [95% CI] = 1.20 [0.82-1.75], p = 0.34) analyses. In a subgroup analysis limited to Japanese patients, both the ITT analysis (pooled eradication rate = 89.6% vs. 73.9%; RR [95% CI] = 1.21 [1.14-1.29], p < 0.01) and the PP analysis (pooled eradication rate = 92.0% vs. 75.7%; RR [95% CI] = 1.18 [1.06-1.32], p < 0.01) showed that P-CABs were significantly superior compared to PPIs as triple eradication therapy. However, in the subgroup analysis of patients from other countries, there was no significant difference in either the ITT analysis (pooled eradication rate = 93.8% vs. 85.2%; RR [95% CI] = 1.10 [0.99-1.22], p = 0.07) or PP analysis (pooled eradication rate = 95.0% vs. 90.8%; RR [95% CI] = 1.05 [0.98-1.14], p = 0.17). The incidence of adverse events associated with the two regimens did not significantly differ (P-CABs vs. PPIs: 33.6% vs. 40.0%; RR [95% CI] = 0.84 [0.71‒1.00], p = 0.05). The incidence of serious adverse events and dropout rate due to adverse events also did not differ (p = 0.44 and p = 0.67, respectively).ConclusionsThe efficacy of P-CAB-based triple therapy is superior to that of PPI-based triple therapy as a first-line approach to H. pylori eradication, particularly in Japanese patients. As salvage therapy, the efficacy of the two treatments did not significantly differ. The tolerability of P-CAB-based and PPI-based triple therapy was comparable, as was the incidence of adverse events.

Dataset Information

Potent Potassium-competitive Acid Blockers: A New Era for the Treatment of Acid-related Diseases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets