Evidence Hub

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing lansoprazole with ranitidine or famotidine in the treatment of acute duodenal ulcer

Poynard T, Lemaire M, Agostini H

European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 1995

848 participants · 63 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the clinical efficacy of lansoprazole with the efficacies of ranitidine and famotidine in order to rank this drug in the hierarchy of duodenal ulcer treatments.

METHODS: All randomized clinical trials in which lansoprazole was used to treat patients with duodenal ulceration were reviewed. The meta-analysis included a quality assessment for each trial. The main criterion chosen for the meta-analysis was the endoscopic healing rate at 4 weeks; other criteria were the healing rate at 2 weeks and the absence of pain at 2 and 4 weeks. Statistical methods used were the Der Simonian and Laird method and the method of Peto et al. A sensitivity analysis was performed according to the H2 blocker type (famotidine or ranitidine). Odds ratios against histamine-receptor blockers were used to compare lansoprazole indirectly with omeprazole and other drugs.

RESULTS: Five double-blind trials were identified including 848 patients. The mean 4-week healing rate in patients treated with lansoprazole was 85%, which was significantly higher than the healing rate in patients treated with H2-receptor blockers (75%). This difference of 10% was significant (P < 0.01) according to the Der Simonian method, and the corresponding odds ratio of 2.27 (95% confidence interval 1.5-3.2) was significant according to the Peto method (P < 0.01). There was also a significant difference in favour of lansoprazole for 2-week healing rates (mean difference 20%, P < 0.01) and for the…

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: 848 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