Evidence Hub

Efficacy of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Versus Proton Pump Inhibitors for Gastric Ulcers: Bayesian and Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis With Cross-Inference Through a Quality management System

Yoon IM, Kim KY, Lee KH, Yoo DW, Oh H

Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental, 2025

6,315 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

• Our study group conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy of potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in treating gastric ulcer (GU) based on randomized controlled trials. • We first present the results of Bayesian + frequentist NMA backbones with cross-inference with the purpose of grouping between P-CABs and PPIs. • We found that the results of the Bayesian + frequentist NMA and grouped inference framework showed similar trends. • Compared to PPIs, our study showed that the cure rates in GU managed with P-CABs were non-inferior. • We also summarized the P-CABs’ current status and characteristics in the discussion section. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been the mainstay treatment for gastric ulcer (GU) for over 30 years. However, since the discovery of a new class of acid suppressants, potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs), the desire for a therapeutic agent has continued and the clinical trials on P-CABs have been conducted. In this regard, we aimed to assess whether P-CABs are noninferior to PPIs in patients with GU in terms of efficacy. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Additionally, we used a new methodology of inference concept with the purpose of grouping between P-CABs and PPIs. Moreover, our quality management system was integrated throughout the research to ensure data accuracy. We initially…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6,315 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free