Table 1.
Characteristics of systematic reviews comparing triple therapy with different PPIs (n = 7)
| Author, year, country | Last search date | Disease | Interventionc | Comparatorc | No. of studies in MA | No. of patients in MA | Eradication rates | Eradication rates odds ratio (95 % CI) by ITT | Quality assessmentb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gisbert et al. 2003-r Spain [43] | Sep 2002 | HP infection; PUD/NUD/not reported | Rabeprazole | Omeprazole/Lansoprazole | 12 | 2226 | 79 % vs. 77 % | 1.15 (0.93–1.42) | + |
| Rabeprazole | Omeprazole | 9 | 1475 | 77 % vs. 77 % | 1.03 (0.81–1.32) | ||||
| Rabeprazole | Lansoprazole | 7 | 1095 | 82 % vs. 79 % | 1.20 (0.87–1.64) | ||||
| Vergara et al. 2003 Spain [51] | Sep 2002 | HP infection | Omeprazole | Lansoprazole | 4 | 1085 | 74.7 % vs. 76 %; | 0.91 (0.69–1.21)a | + |
| Omeprazole | Rabeprazole | 4 | 825 | 77.9 % vs. 81.2 % | 0.81 (0.58–1.15)a | ||||
| Omeprazole | Esomeprazole | 2 | 833 | 87.7 % vs. 89 % | 0.89 (0.58–1.35)a | ||||
| Lansoprazole | Rabeprazole | 3 | 550 | 81 % vs. 85.7 % | 0.77 (0.48–1.22)a | ||||
| Gisbert et al. 2004 Spain [44] | Jun 2003 | HP infection; PUD +/−NUD | Esomeprazole | Omeprazole | 4 | 1292 | 85 % vs. 82 % | 1.19 (0.81–1.74) | + |
| Gisbert et al. 2004 Spain [45] | Sep 2002 | HP infection; PUD +/−NUD | Pantoprazole | Omeprazole/Lansoprazole | 7 | 1137 | 83 % vs. 81 % | 1.00 (0.61–1.64) | + |
| Pantoprazole | Omeprazole | 1 | 974 | 83 % vs. 82 % | 0.91 (0.49–1.69) | ||||
| Pantoprazole | Lansoprazole | 2 | 258 | 78 % vs. 75 % | 1.22 (0.68–2.17) | ||||
| Wang et al. 2006 China [24] | Jul 2006 | HP infection; DU, NUD, PUD | Esomeprazole | Omeprazole | 11 | 2048 | 85.6 % vs. 81.6 % | 1.30 (1.02–1.65) | 0 |
| Wang X et al. 2006 China [46] | 2000–2005 (published date) | HP infection; PUD/NUD | Esomeprazole | Omeprazole/Pantoprazole | 11 | 2146 | 86 % vs. 81 % | 1.39 (1.09–1.75) | 0 |
| Esomeprazole | Omeprazole | 10 | 1946 | 85 % vs. 82 % | 1.29 (1.01–1.65) | ||||
| Esomeprazole | Pantoprazole | 1 | 200 | 94 % vs. 82 % | 3.44 (1.30–9.07) | ||||
| McNicholl et al. 2012 Spain [42] | Oct 2011 | HP infection; naïve to therapy | Rabeprazole | Omeprazole/Lansoprazole/pantoprazole | 21 | 2945 | 80.5 % vs. 76.2 % | 1.21 (1.02–1.42) | 0 |
| Esomeprazole | Omeprazole/Lansoprazole/pantoprazole | 12 | 2598 | 82.3 % vs. 77.6 % | 1.32 (1.01–1.73) | ||||
| Rabeprazole | Esomeprazole | 5 | 1574 | 76.7 % vs. 78.7 % | 0.90 (0.70–1.17) |
HP H.pylori, PPI proton pump inhibitor, PUD peptic ulcer disease, NUD non-ulcer dyspepsia, MA meta-analysis, ITT intention to treat, CI confidence interval
a Peto OR is reported here
b Quality assessment: high quality (++): majority of criteria met, little or no risk of bias and results unlikely to be changed by further research. Acceptable (+): most criteria met, some flaws in the study with an associated risk of bias and conclusions may change in the light of further studies. Low quality (0): either most criteria not met or significant flaws relating to key aspects of study design, and conclusions likely to change in the light of further studies
c The antibiotics are the same type and same dose for each arm of the RCTs