ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2024
The efficacy and safety of a simple 14-day vonoprazan-minocycline dual therapy for
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Fourteen-Day Vonoprazan-Minocycline vs Vonoprazan-Amoxicillin Dual Therapy for Primary Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Minocycline-containing therapy inTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Vonoprazan-minocycline dual therapy as a first-line treatment ofTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current eradication regimens are not ideal for Objective: To explore the efficacy and safety of a simple vonoprazan-minocycline dual therapy (VM dual therapy) in Design: Clinical data of patients who were prescribed 14-day VM dual therapy were retrospectively collected. The included patients were 18-70 years old and positive for Results: Of the 88 enrolled patients, 54 were treatment naïve, 13 had one prior eradication failure, and 21 had multiple eradication failures. The overall intention to treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) eradication rates were 90.9% (95% CI: 82.4-95.7) and 95.2% (95% CI: 87.6-98.5). The ITT eradication rates were 90.7% (95% CI: 78.9-96.5) in treatment-naïve patients, 84.6% (95% CI: 53.7-97.3) in patients with one prior treatment failure, and 95.2% (95% CI: 74.1-99.8) in patients with multiple failures. The PP eradication rates were 94.2% (95% CI: 83.1-98.5), 91.7% (95% CI: 59.8-99.6), and 100%, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse events was 23.0%. The common adverse reactions were nausea and mild dizziness, which could be resolved without intervention. Conclusion: Simple VM dual therapy exhibited a good eradication rate, low incidence of adverse effects, and good adherence. It is a potential new regimen for both first-line and rescue therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.