ReviewEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2026
Potassium-competitive acid blockers and proton-pump inhibitors for the healing and maintenance of erosive esophagitis: a comprehensive and updated systematic review with network meta-analysis.
Review in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers as a New Frontier in Acid-Related Disorders and the Role of South Korean Pharmacological Innovation.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) are non-inferior to standard-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, direct comparative data against double-dose or dual-delayed release PPIs remain limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) ranks the efficacy of PCABs and PPIs (standard, double, and dual-delayed-release doses) for EE healing and maintenance. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception through February 2, 2025 (updated on December 15, 2025) identified RCTs comparing PCABs or PPIs in adults with endoscopically confirmed EE or previously healed EE. Primary outcomes were EE healing at weeks 4 and 8, and maintenance at 6 months. A frequentist NMA estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), using vonoprazan 20 mg once daily (QD) and 10 mg QD as reference for healing and maintenance studies, respectively; ranking metrics (P-scores) were used descriptively. A total of 99 RCTs were included. At week 4, several regimens showed similar healing rate to vonoprazan 20 mg QD, including linaprazan 75 mg BID, linaprazan 50 mg BID, and zastaprazan 20 mg QD. At week 8, zastaprazan 20 mg QD was significantly better than vonoprazan 20 mg QD (RR 1.10; 95%CI 1.01-1.21; P-score = 0.92). For maintenance at 6 months, several standard-dose regimens (including esomeprazole 40 mg QD and vonoprazan 20 mg QD) showed similar efficacy, whereas lower-dose PPIs performed worse. Adverse events were comparable across therapies. Zastaprazan 20 mg QD and esomeprazole 40 mg QD demonstrated the highest efficacy for EE healing and maintenance, respectively. Overall, PCABs did not consistently outperform dual-delayed release or double-dose PPIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295653What 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.