[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-460509-105":59,"doc-detail-460509-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","safety-of-potassium-competitive-acid-blockers-compared-with-proton-pump-inhibitors-in-patients-with-gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-and-peptic-ulcer-disease-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis","Safety of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Compared With Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Peptic Ulcer Disease - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","","Potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) are designed to provide rapid, sustained acid suppression, aiming to address limitations of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Safety evidence for P-CABs is limited, despite well-characterized PPI adverse events. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared P-CABs versus PPIs in gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease, with hypergastrinemia assessed quantitatively alongside qualitative synthesis of adverse events.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/safety-of-potassium-competitive-acid-blockers-compared-with-proton-pump-inhibitors-in-patients-with-gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-and-peptic-ulcer-disease-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/460509/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/safety-of-potassium-competitive-acid-blockers-compared-with-proton-pump-inhibitors-in-patients-with-gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-and-peptic-ulcer-disease-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/460509.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Himbo","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the primary objective of this systematic review?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"To systematically review adverse events of P-CABs compared with PPIs in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease, using meta-analysis to focus on hypergastrinemia.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which studies and patient populations were included?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing P-CABs and PPIs in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease or peptic ulcer disease.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How did adverse event risks compare between P-CABs and PPIs?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Overall, most adverse events had reporting rates below 5% in both groups, while diarrhea, nasopharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract inflammation exceeded 5% in both groups; fracture showed the largest relative difference with a higher rate in the P-CAB group.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},460509,1791099239,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},687197100911,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/a000239b6f1da00475?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1785132997149421697","Journal of  \nGastroenterology and Hepatology  \nSYSTEMATIC REVIEW  OPEN ACCESS   \nSafety of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Compared With Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis  \nYewon Jang1  | Jongho Park2 | Dahee Kang1 | Jae Hyun Kim3 | Hyuk Soon Choi4  | Ha-Lim Jeon3 | Hankil Lee5   \n1College of Pharmacy, Ajou University, Suwon, Republic of Korea | 2Department of BioHealth Regulatory Science, Graduate School of Ajou  \nUniversity, Suwon, Republic of Korea | 3School of Pharmacy and Institute of new Drug Development, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea | 4Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea | 5College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea  \nCorrespondence: Ha-Lim Jeon ([hrjeon@jbnu.ac.kr](hrjeon@jbnu.ac.kr)) | Hankil Lee ([hankil@ewha.ac.kr](hankil@ewha.ac.kr))  \nReceived: 22 May 2025 | Revised: 29 July 2025 | Accepted: 10 August 2025  \nKeywords: gastroesophageal reflux disease | meta-analysis | potassium-competitive acid blockers | proton pump inhibitors | systematic review  \nABSTRACT  \nBackground and Aim: Potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) are a novel class of acid suppressants developed to overcome the limitations of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), providing rapid and sustained acid suppression. While PPI-related adverse events (AEs) are well-documented, safety data on P-CABs remain limited. This study systematically reviewed AEs of P-CABs compared with PPIs, with a meta-analysis focusing on hypergastrinemia.  \nMethods: Following a preregistered PROSPERO protocol (CRD42024565011), we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing P-CABs and PPIs in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease or peptic ulcer disease. Frequently reported AEs and serious AEs (SAEs) were qualitatively synthesized; hypergastrinemia was quantitatively analyzed using a random-effects model.  \nResults: Ten RCTs and one observational study were included. Nine studies reported specific AEs, with diarrhea reported in seven studies and constipation, nasopharyngitis, and liver-related events, each reported in three. Most AEs had reporting rates below 5%, except diarrhea, nasopharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract inflammation, which exceeded 5% in both groups. Fracture demonstrated the largest relative difference between the groups, with a threefold higher rate in the P-CAB group. SAEs were observed in fewer than 10% of patients in both groups in most studies. A meta-analysis of six studies showed greater serum gastrin elevation in the P-CAB group compared with the PPI group (mean difference: 130.92 pg/mL, 95% confidence intervals: 36.37–225.47) .  \nConclusions: P-CABs demonstrate a comparable AE risk to PPIs but monitoring for hypergastrinemia and hepatic dysfunction is essential. Further research is required to support safer clinical use.  \n1 | Introduction  \nGastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease (PUD) are among the most common gastrointestinal (GI)  \ndisorders worldwide, affecting millions of people and driving a significant increase in the use of acid-suppressant drugs [1, 2] . Acid suppressants, particularly proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), have been widely used for the treatment of these acid-related GI  \nThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.  \n© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.  \n28 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2026; 41:28–40  \n[https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.70178](https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.7","cbCaicx9A27ZcVQU","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaicx9A27ZcVQU","pdf",3198252,13,"English","# Background and Aim\n# Methods\n# Results\n# Conclusions","[{\"question\":\"What was the primary objective of this systematic review?\",\"answer\":\"To systematically review adverse events of P-CABs compared with PPIs in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease, using meta-analysis to focus on hypergastrinemia.\"},{\"question\":\"Which studies and patient populations were included?\",\"answer\":\"Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing P-CABs and PPIs in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease or peptic ulcer disease.\"},{\"question\":\"How did adverse event risks compare between P-CABs and PPIs?\",\"answer\":\"Overall, most adverse events had reporting rates below 5% in both groups, while diarrhea, nasopharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract inflammation exceeded 5% in both groups; fracture showed the largest relative difference with a higher rate in the P-CAB group.\"}]","Safety of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Compared With Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Peptic Ulcer Disease - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | PDF",1790758642,33]