Randomized controlled study on the effects of triple therapy including vonoprazan or rabeprazole for the second-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection

Vonoprazan-amoxicillin dual therapy with different amoxicillin dosages for treatment-naive patients of Helicobacter pylori infection in China: a prospective, randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

The vonoprazan (VPZ)-amoxicillin (AMO) dual therapy (VA) demonstrates a satisfactory eradication rate for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori ). However, the optimal dosage of AMO in this regimen remains uncertain. The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of different doses of AMO in the VA regimen for first-line treatment of H. pylori infection.

METHODS

A total of 192 treatment-naive H. pylori -infected patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: low-dose VA (LD-VA: VPZ 20 mg b.i.d + AMO 750 mg t.i.d), moderate-dose VA (MD-VA:VPZ 20 mg b.i.d + AMO 1000 mg t.i.d), and high-dose VA (HD-VA: VPZ 20 mg b.i.d + AMO 1250 mg t.i.d). All groups received 14 days of treatment. The study evaluated and compared the eradication rates, adverse events (AEs), and patient compliance among the three groups.

RESULTS

Eradication rates for LD-VA, MD-VA, and HD-VA were 76.6% (49/64), 79.7% (51/64), and 84.4% (54/64), respectively, as determined by intention-to-treat analysis; 90.6% (48/53), 94.3% (50/53), and 98.1% (53/54) according to per-protocol analysis; 89.1% (49/55), 94.4% (51/54), and 96.4% (54/56) with modified intention-to-treat analysis (all P  > 0.05). Although not statistically significant, numerically higher eradication rates were observed with the higher dose AMO VA regimen. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of AEs and compliance among the three VA regimens.

CONCLUSION

Fourteen-day VA regimens with AMO doses exceeding 2 g/day demonstrated satisfactory eradication rates. HD-VA therapy is potentially the most effective regimen. Large-sample clinical trials are required to further validate these findings.

Treatment of Helicobacter pylori with potassium competitive acid blockers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infects over half the global population, causing gastrointestinal diseases like dyspepsia, gastritis, duodenitis, peptic ulcers, G-MALT lymphoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma. Eradicating H. pylori is crucial for treating and preventing these conditions. While conventional proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapy is effective, there's growing interest in longer acid suppression therapies. Potassium competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) triple and dual therapy are new regimens for H. pylori eradication. Initially used in Asian populations, vonoprazan (VPZ) has been recently Food and Drug Administration-approved for H. pylori eradication.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of regimens containing P-CABs in eradicating H. pylori infection.

METHODS

This study, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE and Scopus libraries for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or observational studies with the following command: [("Helicobacter pylori" OR "H pylori") AND ("Treatment" OR "Therapy" OR "Eradication") AND ("Vonaprazan" OR "Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker" OR "P-CAB" OR "PCAB" OR "Revaprazan" OR "Linaprazan" OR "Soraprazan" OR "Tegoprazan")]. Studies comparing the efficacy of P-CABs-based treatment to classical PPIs in eradicating H. pylori were included. Exclusion criteria included case reports, case series, unpublished trials, or conference abstracts. Data variables encompassed age, diagnosis method, sample sizes, study duration, intervention and control, and H. pylori eradication method were gathered by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed in R software, and forest plots were generated.

RESULTS

A total of 256 references were initially retrieved through the search command. Ultimately, fifteen studies (7 RCTs, 7 retrospective observational studies, and 1 comparative unique study) were included, comparing P-CAB triple therapy to PPI triple therapy. The intention-to-treat analysis involved 8049 patients, with 4471 in the P-CAB intervention group and 3578 in the PPI control group across these studies. The analysis revealed a significant difference in H. pylori eradication between VPZ triple therapy and PPI triple therapy in both RCTs and observational studies [risk ratio (RR) = 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.22, P < 0.0001] and (RR = 1.13, 95%CI: 1.09-1.17, P < 0.0001], respectively. However, no significant difference was found between tegoprazan (TPZ) triple therapy and PPI triple therapy in both RCTs and observational studies (RR = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.93-1.16, P = 0.5) and (RR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.97-1.10, P = 0.3), respectively.

CONCLUSION

VPZ-based triple therapy outperformed conventional PPI-based triple therapy in eradicating H. pylori, positioning it as a highly effective first-line regimen. Additionally, TPZ-based triple therapy was non-inferior to classical PPI triple therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Versus Proton Pump Inhibitors as Helicobacter pylori Eradication Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Helicobacter pylori is a gram-negative bacterium that chronically infects the gastric epithelium. Potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) are a promising alternative, being more potent than standard proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing P-CAB and PPI-based therapy, confirmed H. pylori infection, and measured eradication rates after at least four weeks. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on therapy type and trial location. Quality assessment used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, RoB 2.0, and statistical analysis was performed using ReviewManager (RevMan) 5.4 (2020; The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). A p-value of <0.05 is considered statistically significant. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, P-CABs demonstrated superior overall efficacy, consistently observed in the first-line treatment subgroup. However, no significant difference was found in the subgroup receiving salvage therapy. Another ITT subgroup analyzed the impact of geographical location, favoring P-CABs in the overall study population and the Japanese subgroup. However, no statistically significant differences were found in the subgroups of other countries. In the PPA, P-CABs showed superior efficacy overall, consistently seen in the first-line treatment subgroup. However, no significant difference was found in the subgroup receiving salvage eradication therapy. Another PPA subgroup analysis considered the geographical impact on eradication rates, revealing P-CABs as superior to PPIs in the overall study population and the Japanese subgroup, but not in other countries. No significant adverse event outcomes were observed. P-CAB-based triple therapy is more effective than PPI-based triple therapy as the primary treatment for H. pylori eradication, particularly in Japanese patients. Nevertheless, regarding salvage therapy, both treatments show comparable efficacy. Additionally, the tolerability of P-CAB-based and PPI-based triple therapy is similar, with a similar occurrence of adverse events.

Update on the second-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection: a narrative review

A standard bismuth quadruple therapy, a fluoroquinolone-containing triple (or quadruple) therapy or a proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-amoxicillin high-dose dual therapy has been recommended as a second-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection by the Maastricht VI/Florence Consensus Report. The major shortcoming of levofloxacin-amoxicillin triple therapy is low cure rate for eradicating levofloxacin-resistant strains. With the rising prevalence of levofloxacin-resistant strains, levofloxacin-amoxicillin triple therapy cannot reliably achieve a high eradication rate for second-line treatment of H. pylori infection in most countries now. The present article aims to review current second-line eradication regimens with a per-protocol eradication rate exceeding 85% in most geographic areas. Recently, a novel tetracycline-levofloxacin quadruple therapy consisting of a PPI, bismuth, tetracycline, and levofloxacin for rescue treatment of H. pylori infection has been developed. The new therapy achieved a higher per-protocol eradication rate than levofloxacin-amoxicillin triple treatment in a randomized controlled trial (98% versus 69%). Additionally, the tetracycline-levofloxacin quadruple therapy also exhibits a higher eradication rate than amoxicillin-levofloxacin quadruple therapy. High-dose dual PPI-amoxicillin therapy is another novel second-line treatment for H. pylori infection. The new therapy can achieve an eradication rate of 89% by per-protocol analysis for the second-line treatment in Taiwan. Recently, levofloxacin-based sequential quadruple therapy and potassium-competitive acid blocker have also been applied in the second-line treatment of H. pylori infection. A meta-analysis revealed that a vonoprazan-based regimen has significant superiority over a PPI-based regimen for second-line H. pylori eradication therapy. In conclusion, the eradication rate of levofloxacin-amoxicillin triple therapy is suboptimal in the second-line treatment of H. pylori infection now. Currently, a standard bismuth quadruple therapy (tetracycline-metronidazole quadruple therapy), a tetracycline-levofloxacin quadruple therapy, an amoxicillin-levofloxacin quadruple therapy, a levofloxacin-based sequential quadruple therapy or a high-dose PPI-amoxicillin dual therapy is recommended for the second-line treatment of H. pylori infection.

Antibiotic Resistance, Susceptibility Testing and Stewardship in Helicobacter pylori Infection

Despite the declining trend of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) prevalence around the globe, ongoing efforts are still needed to optimize current and future regimens in view of the increasing antibiotic resistance. The resistance of H. pylori to different antibiotics is caused by different molecular mechanisms, and advancements in sequencing technology have come a far way in broadening our understanding and in facilitating the testing of antibiotic susceptibility to H. pylori. In this literature review, we give an overview of the molecular mechanisms behind resistance, as well as discuss and compare different antibiotic susceptibility tests based on the latest research. We also discuss the principles of antibiotic stewardship and compare the performance of empirical therapies based on up-to-date resistance patterns and susceptibility-guided therapies in providing effective H. pylori treatment. Studies and clinical guidelines should ensure that the treatment being tested or recommended can reliably achieve a pre-agreed acceptable level of eradication rate and take into account the variations in antibiotic resistance across populations. Local, regional and international organizations must work together to establish routine antibiotic susceptibility surveillance programs and enforce antibiotic stewardship in the treatment of H. pylori, so that it can be managed in a sustainable and efficient manner.

Seven-day vonoprazan-based triple therapy as first-lineHelicobacter pylori treatment in comparison with extended sequential therapy

Background and Aim

Vonoprazan as a new acid blocker has more potency and longer lasting acid suppression than proton pump inhibitors. Whether the efficacy of vonoprazan-based triple therapy is comparable with or even better than that of currently recommended first-line therapies is still unknown. Our study aims to compare the eradication rate and major adverse effects between 7-day vonoprazan-based triple therapy with high-dose amoxicillin and 14-day extended sequential therapy.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis from the database of ¹³C-urea breath test at Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital. All patients with a definite diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection by rapid urease test, urea breath test, stool antigen test, or pathology report were recruited. Patients receiving first-line regimens with vonoprazan-based triple therapy or extended sequential therapy were included. The respective eradication rate determined by ¹³C-urea breath test and major adverse effects were demonstrated.

Results

Totally, 106 patients were recruited in the vonoprazan-based triple therapy group and 357 in the extended sequential therapy group. There was no significant difference in eradication rate between vonoprazan-based triple therapy with high-dose amoxicillin and extended sequential therapy (83.0 vs 88.8%, P = 0.12). Major adverse effects occurred in 13 of the extended sequential therapy group but none in the other group (0% vs 3.6%, P = 0.046).

Conclusions

Seven-day vonoprazan-based triple therapy with high-dose amoxicillin is a potential first-line anti-Helicobacter pylori regimen alternative to current standard treatment, with the advantages of simplicity, short treatment duration, low pill burden, and fewer major adverse effects.

Incidence and type of adverse events in patients taking vonoprazan: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Vonoprazan, a novel acid-suppressive drug, is non-inferior to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the management of gastric acid-related diseases. However, the safety of vonoprazan has not been systematically evaluated yet.

Objectives

To elucidate the incidence and type of adverse events (AEs) in patients taking vonoprazan.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources and methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all studies reporting the safety of vonoprazan. The incidences of any AEs, drug-related AEs, serious AEs, AEs leading to drug discontinuation, and common AEs were pooled. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare the incidence of AEs between patients taking vonoprazan and PPIs.

Results

Seventy-seven studies were included. The pooled incidences of any AEs, drug-related AEs, serious AEs, and AEs leading to drug discontinuation were 20, 7, 1, and 1%, respectively. The incidences of any AEs (OR = 0.96, p = 0.66), drug-related AEs (OR = 1.10, p = 0.44), serious AEs (OR = 1.14, p = 0.36), and AEs leading to drug discontinuation (OR = 1.09, p = 0.55) were not significantly different between patients taking vonoprazan and PPIs. In subgroup analyses, patients with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) had higher incidences of any AEs, serious AEs, and AEs leading to drug discontinuation than those with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection, and artificial ulcer after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but patients with H. pylori infection had a higher incidence of drug-related AEs than those with PUD, GERD, and artificial ulcer after gastric ESD. The incidence of AEs was higher in patients taking long-term use of vonoprazan than those taking short-term use of vonoprazan.

Conclusion

Vonoprazan is well tolerated and shows similar safety compared to PPIs. The safety of vonoprazan may be primarily influenced by its indications and duration.

Registration

PROSPERO CRD42022314982.

A comparison of efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blocker and proton pump inhibitor in gastric acid-related diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) is a recent alternative to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for potent acid suppression. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PCAB versus PPI in treating gastric acid-related diseases.

METHODS

We searched up to June 5, 2022, for randomized controlled trials of gastric acid-related diseases that included erosive esophagitis, symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcers, and Helicobacter pylori infection. The pooled risk ratio (RR) was evaluated for the efficacy outcome and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) as the safety outcome. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the study findings.

RESULTS

Of the 710 screened studies, 19 studies including 7023 participants were analyzed. The RRs for the healing of erosive esophagitis with Vonoprazan versus PPI were 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.14), 1.03 (95% CI 1.00-1.07), and 1.02 (95% CI 1.00-1.05) in Weeks 2, 4, and 8, respectively. There were no differences in the improvement of GERD symptoms and healing of gastric and duodenal ulcers between PCAB and PPI. The pooled eradication rates of H. pylori were significantly higher in Vonoprazan versus PPI first-line treatment (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.04-1.22). The overall RR of TEAEs with Vonoprazan versus PPI was 1.08 (95% CI 0.89-1.31). Overall, the risk of bias was low to some concerns. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the study's conclusion.

CONCLUSION

Vonoprazan is superior to PPI in first-line H. pylori eradication and erosive esophagitis but non-inferior in other gastric acid-related diseases. Likewise, short-term safety is comparable in both treatment groups.

Effectiveness and safety of vonoprazan-based regimen for Helicobacter pylori eradication: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication rate of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based regimen remains decreasing. Vonoprazan (VPZ), a stronger and longer-lasting acid blocker, has been proposed to treatment of H. pylori infection. However, previous reviews did not have a pre-established study protocol and did not conduct a comprehensive search of the database, so the results obtained were not robust. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of VPZ-based regimens for treatment of H. pylori infection in comparison with other regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials and ChiCTR Register. Randomized clinical trials comparing VPZ-based regimens with similar eradication regimens without VPZ in the treatment of H. pylori infection were included. Eradication rate, compliance of the patients and side effects were specified as the primary outcomes. RevMan 5.4 software was used to analyze the RCTs and provide pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Systematic searches, study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and statistical analysis were performed by two independent researchers according to the predesigned criteria on the PROSPERO.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 8 RCTs with 2012 patients qualified for evaluation. The results showed that the eradication rate of VPZ-containing regimens was significantly superior to PPI-containing regimens for both intention-to-treat (RR, 1.14; 95% CI: 1.06-1.23; p = 0.0006) and per-protocol analyses (RR, 1.12; 95% CI: 1.04-1.20; p = 0.003). Subgroup analysis based on treatment regimens, eradication experience and clarithromycin resistance, as well as sensitivity analysis further confirmed this finding. In addition, there was no significant difference in compliance (RR, 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-0.1.05; p = 0.35) and the frequency of adverse events (RR, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70-1.00; p = 0.05) between the regimens.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Compared with PPI-based regimens, the VPZ-containing regimens showed a comparable or even superior eradication rate of H. pylori in terms of overall comparison and comparison of different treatment regimens, eradication experience and clarithromycin resistance. In addition, VPZ-based regimens have better tolerability and fewer adverse events. More future studies are needed to evaluate the impact of some differences in patient characteristics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021229598.

Efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blockers versus proton pump inhibitors as Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Potassium-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.

METHODS

The 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).

RESULTS

Seven 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).

CONCLUSIONS

The 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.