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)
|