ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2026
Fourteen-Day Vonoprazan-Minocycline vs Vonoprazan-Amoxicillin Dual Therapy for Primary Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe therapeutic strategies available to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in individuals allergic to penicillin remain constrained, and regimens containing minocycline are considered potential alternative options. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether the efficacy of 14-day vonoprazan-minocycline (VM) dual therapy was noninferior to vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy as an initial therapy against H. pylori infection.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis on adult patients infected with H. pylori who had received either of these 2 regimens. To reduce selection bias and confounding factors, we used nearest neighbor caliper matching with a 0.1 caliper distance to identify eligible patients.
resultsIn both overall and as-treated analyses, the 95% confidence intervals for the difference in eradication rates all surpassed the predefined noninferiority margin of -0.1. These results confirmed that the VM group is noninferior to the VA group (all 1-sided P < 0.025). In the VM cohort, the eradication rate among penicillin-allergic patients was comparable with that of nonallergic patients in both the overall and as-treated analyses. Besides, the VM and VA groups exhibited comparable safety profiles, with adverse event incidences of 32% and 42%, respectively. In addition, the VM dual group demonstrated better compliance than the VA dual group (99.2% vs 93.2%, P = 0.02). DISCUSSION: This retrospective propensity score matching analysis demonstrated noninferior efficacy of VM therapy compared with VA therapy, with equivalent safety and favorable treatment adherence, suggesting VM therapy may serve as a potential alternative option for penicillin-allergic patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.