Evidence Hub

S1016 Second Generation Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Match Proton Pump Inhibitors in Healing and Safety for Erosive Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Four Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trials

Ashesh Das, Venkata Dileep Kumar Veldi, Urvashi Bharia, Harshawardhan Dhanraj Ramteke, Rakhshanda Khan, Rishi Chowdhary, Heer Pareshbhai Shah, Syeda Ayesha Fatima et al.

The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2025

1,085 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain first-line therapy for erosive esophagitis (EO), yet incomplete acid control and nocturnal breakthrough limit their effectiveness in up to one-third of patients. Second-generation potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs)—notably tegoprazan and fexuprazan—provide faster, meal-independent and more durable pH elevation than the first-in-class agent vonoprazan. Despite their rapidly expanding clinical use, to our knowledge head-to-head performance against PPIs in double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has never been analyzed. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library identified 4 double-blind RCTs comparing second generation PCABs and PPIs for treatment of EO through May 2025. Data were analyzed using RevMan 4.2.1. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel methods. Random- or fixed-effects models were applied based on heterogeneity (Higgins’ I²). Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias 2.0. Results: Four double-blind RCTs comprising 1,085 patients with EO (PPI = 543; PCAB = 542) met eligibility. The efficacy endpoint showed endoscopic healing at 4 weeks was achieved in 83% of PPI‐treated vs 87% of PCAB-treated participants (421/505 vs 448/514; RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.91-1.01; I² = 0%), and at 8 weeks in 93% vs 95% (478/512 vs 490/518; RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96-1.02; I² = 0%). The safety…

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: 1,085 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