A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the efficacy of vonoprazan for proton pump inhibitor‐resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Up to 40% of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients experience inadequate symptom relief with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), termed PPI-resistant or refractory GERD. Vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker, has better efficacy than PPI in suppressing gastric acid secretion. This meta-analysis summarizes the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan for treating PPI-resistant GERD (both erosive esophagitis [EE] and non-erosive reflux disease [NERD]). METHODS: Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL) were searched for studies indexed until August 1, 2023. Both observational studies and clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan in PPI-resistant GERD were included. Efficacy outcomes included healing and maintenance rates of EE and improvement of the Frequency Scale for Symptoms of GERD (FSSG) scores. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were considered a safety outcome. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this meta-analysis. Healing rates of PPI-resistant EE with vonoprazan 20 mg were 91.7% (95% CI 86.8-94.8%) and 88.5% (95% CI 69.7-96.2%) at weeks 4 and 8, respectively. For healed PPI-resistant EE, the overall maintenance rates with vonoprazan 10 mg were 82.6% (95% 61.2-95.0%) at week 8, 86.0% (95% CI 72.1-94.7%) at week 24, and 93.8% (95% CI 69.8-99.8%) at week 48. FSSG scores were improved in 74.6% (95% CI 65.8-81.7%) and 51.9% (95% CI 37.8-65.7%) of patients at weeks 4 and 8. Overall, no SAE was reported. CONCLUSION: Vonoprazan demonstrated high efficacy in the healing and maintenance of PPI-resistant EE and moderate efficacy for the improvement of FSSG score. Vonoprazan was well tolerated in PPI-resistant GERD patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".