H2-antagonist maintenance therapy versus Helicobacter pylori eradication in patients with chronic duodenal ulcer disease: a prospective study

Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection in Patients with Penicillin Allergy

Helicobacter pylori is among the prevalent causes of infections worldwide, and its resistance rate to antibiotics has been rising over time. Amoxicillin is the cornerstone for the treatment regimen. However, the prevalence of penicillin allergy ranges from 4% to 15%. In patients with true allergy, Vonoprazan-Clarithromycin-Metronidazole and bismuth quadruple therapy have demonstrated excellent eradication and high adherence rates. Vonoprazan-based therapy is administered less frequently and may be better tolerated than bismuth quadruple therapy. Therefore, vonoprazan-based therapy may be considered as a first-line therapy if accessible. Bismuth quadruple therapy can be used as the initial therapy when vonoprazan is unavailable. Levofloxacin or sitafloxacin-based regimens achieve a moderately high eradication rate. However, these are associated with potentially serious adverse effects and should only be used when other effective and safer regimens are unavailable. Cephalosporins such as cefuroxime have been used as an alternative to amoxicillin. Microbial susceptibility studies can guide the selection of appropriate antibiotics. PPI-Clarithromycin-Metronidazole fails to achieve a high eradication rate and should be used as a second-line therapy. PPI-Clarithromycin-Rifabutin should not be used because of low eradication rate and frequent adverse reactions. The choice of the most effective antibiotic regimen can enhance clinical outcomes in patients with H. pylori infection and penicillin allergy.

Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in the presence of penicillin allergy

Therapy of Helicobacter pylori (H.pylori) requires a combination of antibiotics together with an acid suppressing agent; most treatment regimens include Amoxicillin as one of the antibiotics, which is an important constituent as resistance to it is low. However, allergies to the penicillin group of antibiotics are not uncommon, and treating H.pylori infection in such individuals can be challenging due to the restricted choice of regimens. The aim of this review is to summarise the evidence for therapeutic options in patients with H.pylori infection and penicillin allergy. A literature search was conducted in PubMed for English language publications using the key words ‘Helicobacter’ and ‘treatment’ or ‘therapy‘ and ‘penicillin’ or ‘beta-lactam’ and ‘allergy’ or ‘anaphylaxis’. Eighteen studies were identified that specifically evaluated H.pylori treatment success in penicillin allergic patients. The number of subjects in most of them was low and many were retrospective, uncontrolled, single cohort studies. The most effective option for first-line treatment appears to be Bismuth-based quadruple therapy for 10-14 d. The evidence supports second-line treatment with Levoflaxacin-based triple therapy for 10 d. Patients with persistent H.pylori infection after 2 treatment courses should be considered for testing to confirm penicillin allergy. Further treatment should be guided by the results of H.pylori culture and sensitivity testing.

Helicobacter pylori first-line and rescue treatments in patients allergic to penicillin: Experience from the European Registry on H pylori management (Hp-EuReg)

BACKGROUND

Experience in Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment of patients allergic to penicillin is very scarce. A triple combination with a PPI, clarithromycin (C), and metronidazole (M) is often prescribed as the first option, although more recently the use of a quadruple therapy with PPI, bismuth (B), tetracycline (T), and M has been recommended.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line and rescue treatments in patients allergic to penicillin in the "European Registry of H pylori management" (Hp-EuReg).

METHODS

A systematic prospective registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists (27 countries, 300 investigators) on the management of H pylori infection. An e-CRF was created on AEG-REDCap. Patients with penicillin allergy were analyzed until June 2019.

RESULTS

One-thousand eighty-four patients allergic to penicillin were analyzed. The most frequently prescribed first-line treatments were as follows: PPI + C + M (n = 285) and PPI + B + T + M (classic or Pylera^® ; n = 250). In first line, the efficacy of PPI + C + M was 69%, while PPI + B + T + M reached 91% (P < .001). In second line, after the failure of PPI + C + M, two rescue options showed similar efficacy: PPI + B + T + M (78%) and PPI + C + levofloxacin (L) (71%) (P > .05). In third line, after the failure of PPI + C + M and PPI + C + L, PPI + B + T + M was successful in 75% of cases.

CONCLUSION

In patients allergic to penicillin, a triple combination with PPI + C + M should not be generally recommended as a first-line treatment, while a quadruple regimen with PPI + B + T + M seems to be a better option. As a rescue treatment, this quadruple regimen (if not previously prescribed) or a triple regimen with PPI + C + L could be used but achieved suboptimal (<80%) results.

Eradication therapy for peptic ulcer disease in Helicobacter pylori-positive people

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer disease is the cause of dyspepsia in about 10% of people. Ninety-five percent of duodenal and 70% of gastric ulcers are associated with Helicobacter pylori. Eradication of H. pylori reduces the relapse rate of ulcers but the magnitude of this effect is uncertain. This is an update of Ford AC, Delaney B, Forman D, Moayyedi P. Eradication therapy for peptic ulcer disease in Helicobacter pylori-positive patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD003840. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003840.pub4.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the proportion of peptic ulcers healed and the proportion of participants who remained free from relapse with eradication therapy against placebo or other pharmacological therapies in H. pylori-positive people.To assess the proportion of participants that achieved complete relief of symptoms and improvement in quality of life scores.To compare the incidence of adverse effects/drop-outs (total number for each drug) associated with the different treatments.To assess the proportion of participants in whom successful eradication was achieved.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update, we identified trials by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to March 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to March 2016). To identify further relevant trials, we handsearched reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching, and published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week (published in Gut) and Digestive Disease Week (published in Gastroenterology). The search was last updated in March 2016. We contacted members of Cochrane Upper GI and Pancreatic Diseases, and experts in the field and asked them to provide details of outstanding clinical trials and any relevant unpublished materials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We analysed randomised controlled trials of short- and long-term treatment of peptic ulcer disease in H. pylori-positive adults. Participants received at least one week of H. pylori eradication compared with ulcer healing drug, placebo or no treatment. Trials were included if they reported assessment from two weeks onwards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected data on ulcer healing, recurrence, relief of symptoms and adverse effects. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with Review Manager software (RevMan 5.3) based on intention-to-treat analysis as far as possible.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 55 trials were included for one or more outcomes for this review.In duodenal ulcer healing, eradication therapy was superior to ulcer healing drug (UHD) (34 trials, 3910 participants, RR of ulcer persisting = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.76; 381/2286 (adjusted proportion: 12.4%) in eradication therapy plus UHD versus 304/1624 (18.7%) in UHD; low quality evidence) and no treatment (two trials, 207 participants, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.53; 30/125 (adjusted proportion: 21.7%) in eradication therapy versus 48/82 (58.5%) in no treatment; low quality evidence).In gastric ulcer healing, the differences were imprecise between eradication therapy and UHD (15 trials, 1974 participants, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.68; 220/1192 (adjusted proportion: 16.0%) in eradication therapy plus UHD versus 102/782 (13.0%) in UHD; very low quality evidence). In preventing duodenal ulcer recurrence the differences were imprecise between maintenance therapy with H.pylori eradication therapy and maintenance therapy with UHD (four trials, 319 participants, RR of ulcer recurring 0.73; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25; 19/159 (adjusted proportion: 11.9%) in eradication therapy versus 26/160 (16.3%) in UHD; very low quality evidence), but eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (27 trials 2509 participants, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.26; 215/1501 (adjusted proportion: 12.9%) in eradication therapy versus 649/1008 (64.4%) in no treatment; very low quality evidence).In preventing gastric ulcer recurrence, eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (12 trials, 1476 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.45; 116/697 (adjusted proportion: 16.3%) in eradication therapy versus 356/679 (52.4%) in no treatment; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported proportion of people with gastric ulcer not healed after initial therapy between H.pylori eradication therapy and no active treatment or the proportion of people with recurrent gastric ulcer or peptic ulcers during maintenance therapy between H.pylori eradication therapy and ulcer healing drug therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adding a one to two-week course of H. pylori eradication therapy is an effective treatment for people with H. pylori-positive duodenal ulcer when compared to ulcer healing drugs alone and no treatment. H. pylori eradication therapy is also effective in preventing recurrence of duodenal and gastric ulcer compared to no treatment. There is currently no evidence that H. pylori eradication therapy is an effective treatment in people with gastric ulcer or that it is effective in preventing recurrence of duodenal ulcer compared to ulcer healing drug. However, confidence intervals were wide and significant benefits or harms of H. pylori eradication therapy in acute ulcer healing of gastric ulcers compared to no treatment, and in preventing recurrence of duodenal ulcers compared to ulcer healing drugs cannot be ruled out.

Controversies in the Helicobacter pylori/duodenal ulcer story

In patients with Helicobacter pylori-positive duodenal ulcer (DU), the organism must be eradicated to achieve rapid, stable healing. However, evidence is against much else that is commonly accepted. (1) Does H. pylori cause the ulcer? Evidence against includes archaeopathology, geographical prevalence, temporal relationships and H. pylori-negative DU patients. DU can recur after eradication of H. pylori infection, and DUs may remain healed after reduction of acid secretion despite persistent infection. The faster healing of ulcers when H. pylori has been eradicated is due to the organism's interference with neoangiogenesis and the healing of wounded epithelial cells. (2) Does H. pylori infection persist until pharmacologically eradicated? Studies based on current infection show that H. pylori infection is a labile state that can change in 3 months. High rates of gastric acid secretion result in spontaneous cure, whereas low rates permit re-infection. Hydrochloric acid, necessary for producing a DU, is strongly associated with the likelihood of an ulcer. At the start, patients owe their ulcer to gastric hypersecretion of hydrochloric acid; approximately 60% may be H. pylori-negative. If acid is suppressed, the less acid milieu encourages invasion by H. pylori, especially if the strain is virulent.

Precise role of H pylori in duodenal ulceration

The facts that H pylori infection is commoner in duodenal ulcer (DU) patients than in the normal population, and that eradication results in most cases being cured, have led to the belief that it causes DU. However, early cases of DU are less likely than established ones to be infected. H pylori-negative cases are usually ascribed to specific associated factors such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Crohn’s disease, and hypergastrinaemia, but even after excluding these, several H pylori-negative cases remain and are particularly common in areas of low prevalence of H pylori infection. Moreover, this incidence of H pylori negative DU is not associated with a fall in overall DU prevalence when compared with countries with a higher H pylori prevalence. In countries with a high H pylori prevalence there are regional differences in DU prevalence, but no evidence of an overall higher prevalence of DU than in countries with a low H pylori prevalence. There is no evidence that virulence factors are predictive of clinical outcome. After healing following eradication of H pylori infection DU can still recur. Medical or surgical measures to reduce acid output can lead to long-term healing despite persistence of H pylori infection. Up to half of cases of acute DU perforation are H pylori negative. These findings lead to the conclusion that H pylori infection does not itself cause DU, but leads to resistance to healing, i.e., chronicity. This conclusion is shown not to be incompatible with the universally high prevalence of DU compared with controls.

Eradication therapy for peptic ulcer disease in Helicobacter pylori positive patients

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer disease is the cause for dyspepsia in about 10% of patients. 95% of duodenal and 70% of gastric ulcers are associated with Helicobacter pylori. Eradication of H pylori reduces the relapse rate of ulcers but the magnitude of this effect is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The primary outcomes were the proportion of peptic ulcers healed initially and proportion of patients free from relapse following successful healing. Eradication therapy was compared to placebo or pharmacological therapies in H. pylori positive patients. Secondary aims included symptom relief and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 2002) MEDLINE (1966 to July 2002) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2002). Reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching were handsearched to identify further relevant trials. Published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week (published in Gut) and Digestive Disease Week (published in Gastroenterology) were handsearched. The search was updated in September 2003, November 2004 and November 2005. Members of the Cochrane UGPD Group, and experts in the field were contacted and asked to provide details of outstanding clinical trials and any relevant unpublished materials

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of short and long-term treatment of peptic ulcer disease in H. pylori positive adults were analysed. Patients received at least one week of H pylori eradication compared with ulcer healing drug, placebo or not treatment. Trials were included if they reported assessment from 2 weeks onwards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on ulcer healing, recurrence, relief of symptoms and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

63 trials were eligible. Data extraction was not possible in 7 trials, and 56 trials were included. In duodenal ulcer healing, eradication therapy was superior to ulcer healing drug (UHD) (34 trials, 3910 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer persisting = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58, 0.76) and no treatment (2 trials, 207 patients, RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.26, 0.53). In gastric ulcer healing, no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and UHD (14 trials, 1572 patients, RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 0.88, 1.76). In preventing duodenal ulcer recurrence no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and maintenance therapy with UHD (4 trials, 319 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer recurring = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.42, 1.25), but eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (27 trials 2509 patients, RR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.15, 0.26). In preventing gastric ulcer recurrence, eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (11 trials, 1104 patients, RR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.20, 0.42).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A 1 to 2 weeks course of H. pylori eradication therapy is an effective treatment for H. pylori positive peptic ulcer disease.

Eradication therapy for peptic ulcer disease in Helicobacter pylori positive patients

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer disease is the cause for dyspepsia in about 10% of patients. 95% of duodenal and 70% of gastric ulcers are associated with Helicobacter pylori. Eradication of H pylori reduces the relapse rate of ulcers but the magnitude of this effect is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The primary outcomes were the proportion of peptic ulcers healed initially and proportion of patients free from relapse following successful healing. Eradication therapy was compared to placebo or pharmacological therapies in H. pylori positive patients. Secondary aims included symptom relief and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was undertaken according to the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group module using CCTR, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases. Experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. Abstract books between 1994 and 2003 were hand-searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of short and long-term treatment of peptic ulcer disease in H. pylori positive adults were analysed. Patients received at least one week of H pylori eradication compared with ulcer healing drug, placebo or not treatment. Trials were included if they reported assessment from 2 weeks onwards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on ulcer healing, recurrence, relief of symptoms and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

60 trials were eligible. Data extraction was not possible in 7 trials, and 53 trials were included. In duodenal ulcer healing, eradication therapy was superior to ulcer healing drug (UHD) (34 trials, 3910 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer persisting = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58, 0.76) and no treatment (2 trials, 207 patients, RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.26, 0.53). In gastric ulcer healing, no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and UHD (13 trials, 1469 patients, RR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.92, 1.90). In preventing duodenal ulcer recurrence no significant differences were detected between eradication therapy and maintenance therapy with UHD (4 trials, 319 patients, relative risk [RR] of ulcer recurring = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.42, 1.25), but eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (27 trials 2509 patients, RR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.15, 0.26). In preventing gastric ulcer recurrence, eradication therapy was superior to no treatment (10 trials, 1029 patients, RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.18, 0.43).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

A 1 to 2 weeks course of H. pylori eradication therapy is an effective treatment for H. pylori positive peptic ulcer disease.

Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori after triple therapy in uncomplicated duodenal ulcers--a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of determining Helicobacter pylori status after treatment remains to be established.

AIM

To determine the benefit of post-treatment assessment of H. pylori eradication in patients with uncomplicated duodenal ulcer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision analysis was performed in patients with uncomplicated duodenal ulcer who were H. pylori-positive and had received eradication therapy. A decision tree was devised to compare the costs per patient of two different strategies: (a) systematic performance of post-treatment urea breath test and new treatment if positive; and (b) clinical follow-up, 13C-urea breath test if dyspeptic symptoms recurred and eradication treatment if the test was positive.

RESULTS

Post-eradication 13C-urea breath test was notably more expensive than clinical follow-up, both in a low-cost per care setting (197 vs. 132 Euros) and in a high-cost per care (614 vs. 340 US $) scenario. This conclusion remained stable for a wide range of variations of the variables included in the decision tree (e.g. cure rates of eradication treatment, cost of the urea breath test or sensitivity, and specificity of urea breath test to detect eradication).

CONCLUSION

In patients with uncomplicated duodenal ulcer, evaluation of eradication after H. pylori treatment markedly increases costs with no clear improvement in results and therefore should not be performed routinely.