Evidence Hub

S986 Four-Week Healing Rates of Erosive Esophagitis: A Network Meta-Analysis of PCABs Versus PPIs

Mulham Alom, Bisher Sawaf, Shahem Abbarh, Yusuf Omar Hallak, Amine Rakab, Ahmad Kasem, Mohammed S. Beshr, Muhammed Elhadi

The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2025

4,263 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have long been the cornerstone of treatment for erosive esophagitis (EE), but potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) have emerged as a promising alternative with faster onset and longer acid suppression. However, the comparative efficacy of individual PCAB agents remains unclear. This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the healing efficacy of various PCABs and PPIs in EE, with subgroup analysis based on Los Angeles (LA) classification. Methods: A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating healing rates of EE with PCABs versus PPIs were included. The primary outcome was the 4-week healing rate. Patients were stratified based on LA grades A/B versus C/D. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each agent using a random-effects network meta-analysis model. Results: Twelve trials involving 4,263 patients evaluated 4-week healing rates in erosive esophagitis. Treatments included vonoprazan (32.8%), tegoprazan (9.1%), fexuprazan (5.9%), keverprazan (2.5%), zastaprazan (3.1%), linaprazan (4.2%), and PPIs (42.5%). Most patients (73.2%) had LA grade A or B esophagitis, while 26.8% had grade C or D. Only zastaprazan 20 mg demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the overall healing rate compared to PPIs (OR 2.75; 95% CI 1.06 to 7.13). However, no statistically…

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: 4,263 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