Role of antibiotic sensitivity testing before first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication treatments

Optimizing Helicobacter pylori Treatment: An Updated Review of Empirical and Susceptibility Test-Based Treatments

As the rate of discovery of drug-resistant Helicobacter pylori cases increases worldwide, the relevant societies have updated their guidelines for primary eradication regimens. A promising strategy against drug-resistant H. pylori is tailored therapy based on the results of an antibiotic susceptibility test; however, it is difficult to apply this strategy to all cases. Although culture-based antibiotic susceptibility tests can assess resistance to any antimicrobial agent, their greatest disadvantage is the time required to draw a conclusion. In contrast, molecular-based methods, such as polymerase chain reaction, can rapidly determine the presence of resistance, although a single test can only test for one type of antimicrobial agent. Additionally, the limited availability of facilities for molecular-based methods has hindered their widespread use. Therefore, low-cost, minimally invasive, simple, and effective primary regimens are needed. Several studies have compared the efficacy of the latest primary eradication regimens against that of tailored therapies, and their results have shaped guidelines. This article reviews the latest research on empirical and tailored treatments for H. pylori infections. Evidence for the superiority of tailored therapy over empirical therapy is still limited and varies by region and treatment regimen. A network meta-analysis comparing different empirical treatment regimens showed that vonoprazan triple therapy provides a superior eradication effect. Recently, favorable results towards vonoprazan dual therapy have been reported, as it reached eradication levels similar to those of vonoprazan triple therapy. Both vonoprazan dual therapy and tailored therapy based on antibiotic susceptibility tests could contribute to future treatment strategies.

Empirical versus tailored therapy based on genotypic resistance detection for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The eradication rate of Helicobacter pylori infection with empirical therapy has decreased due to increased drug resistance. The latest guidelines recommend genotypic resistance-guided therapy, but its clinical efficacy remains unclear.

Objectives

The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether tailored therapy based on genotypic resistance is superior to empirical therapy for H. pylori infection.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tailored therapy based on genotypic resistance with empirical therapy was performed.

Sources and methods

We retrieved relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was H. pylori eradication rate and the adverse events (AEs) was the secondary outcome. A random-effect model was applied to compare pooled risk ratios (RRs) with related 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of 12 qualified RCTs containing 3940 patients were identified in our systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled eradication rates of tailored therapy based on the detection of genotypic resistance were consistently higher than those in the empirical treatment group, with no statistical significance. In triple therapy, the eradication rate was significantly higher in the tailored group than in the empirical group by intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) and per-protocol analysis (PP) analysis (p < 0.0001, RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.12-1.29; p < 0.0001, RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.15-1.25). In quadruple therapy, the eradication rate was higher in the empirical group (p = 0.001, RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89-0.97; p = 0.009, RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99). And this result was true for both bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT) and non-BQT. Regarding total AEs, the pooled rate was 34% in the tailored group and 37% in the empirical group, and no difference between the two groups was found (p = 0.17, RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.74-1.06).

Conclusion

In conclusion, tailored therapy based on molecular methods may offer better efficacy than empirical triple therapy, but it may not be superior to empirical quadruple therapy in eradicating H. pylori infection. Larger and more individualized RCTs are needed to aid clinical decision-making.

Registration PROSPERO

CRD42023408688.

Current role of tailored therapy in treating Helicobacter pylori infections. A systematic review, meta-analysis and critical analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent guidelines dictate that all Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infected subjects should receive curative therapy. The efficacy of empirical regimens for H. pylori eradication might decline with bacterial, drug, and host factors. The necessity of a tailored therapy still remains controversial. Here we provide a meta-analysis of the current status of susceptibility-based (tailored) therapy in which susceptibility-based therapies were compared to the currently accepted choice of empiric therapy. In this rapidly closing era, neither the susceptibility nor empiric therapies were routinely optimized, such that we report the outcome of comparisons on the efficacy of unoptimized tailored vs. locally preferred empiric treatments.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases were searched using suitable keywords. Individual and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the fixed- or random-effects model as appropriate. Heterogeneity was calculated employing the Cochrane Q test and I² values, whereas the possibility of publication bias was examined by constructing funnel plots. Additionally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included with a total of 9613 patients. Tailored therapy proved superior to empiric treatment [OR 2.07 (95% CI 1.53-2.79)]. However, tailored therapy achieved eradication rates >90% in only 15 (44%) studies and >95% in only 6 (17.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although tailored therapy performed better than empiric treatment, the lack of optimization of therapies failed to reliably achieve high cure rates (>90%). These results emphasize that H. pylori infection, like other infectious diseases, should utilize the principles of antimicrobial stewardship in relation to treatment guidance.

Tailored therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Due to an increase in drug resistance, the eradication rate of H. pylori with empirical therapy has declined. Tailored therapy has been proposed as an alternative to standard empirical treatments. The necessity of personalized eradication therapy remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether tailored therapy is superior to empirical therapy for H. pylori infection.

Methods: We searched for eligible randomized controlled trials in the PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Wanfang, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases up to 10 December 2021. A random effects model comparing pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was applied in the meta-analysis.

Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis. In the first-line treatment, tailored therapy was more effective than empirical therapy (RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.08–1.21], I² = 72.2%). In the second-line therapy setting, the results did not reveal significant differences between the two treatments (RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.84–1.30], I² = 80.6%). A similar result was observed in mixed second- and third-line treatments (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.96–1.11], I² = 0.0%). Regarding adverse events, no significant differences were found between the two treatments (RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.80–1.01], I² = 35.7%). Most of the results were highly heterogeneous.

Conclusion: A tailored approach might provide a better eradication rate than empirical methods in first-line treatment. There might be no obvious advantage in second-line or mixed second- and third-line treatments third-line treatment. Due to the high heterogeneity, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further clinical studies are needed and justified.

Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Treating Helicobacter pylori infection according to antibiotic resistance has been frequently recommended. However, information on its real effectiveness is scarce.

Aim

The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis comparing empirical vs. susceptibility-guided treatment of H. pylori.

Methods

Selection of studies: Studies comparing empirical versus susceptibility-guided treatment were selected. Search strategy: electronic and manual up to August 2021. Data synthesis: by intention-to-treat (random-effects model).

Results

Overall, 54 studies were included (6,705 patients in the susceptibility-guided group and 7,895 in the empirical group). H. pylori eradication rate was 86 vs. 76%, respectively (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.08-1.17; I 2: 83%). Similar results were found when only RCTs were evaluated (24 studies; RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.11-1.22; I 2: 71%) and when susceptibility testing was assessed by culture (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.06-1.18) or PCR (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05-1.23). For first-line treatments (naïve patients; 30 studies), better efficacy results were obtained with the susceptibility-guided strategy (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.11-1.20; I 2: 79%). However, for empirical first-line quadruple regimens, in particular (both with and without bismuth, excluding the suboptimal triple therapies), not based on CYP2C19 gene polymorphism, no differences in efficacy were found compared with the susceptibility-guided group (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99-1.09); this lack of difference was confirmed in RCTs (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.99-1.12). For rescue therapies (13 studies, most 2nd-line), similar results were demonstrated for both strategies, including all studies (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.97-1.22; I 2: 82%) and when only RCTs were considered (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.97-1.36).

Conclusion

The benefit of susceptibility-guided treatment over empirical treatment of H. pylori infection could not be demonstrated, either in first-line (if the most updated quadruple regimens are prescribed) or in rescue therapies.

E-Test or Agar Dilution for Metronidazole Susceptibility Testing of Helicobacter pylori: Importance of the Prevalence of Metronidazole Resistance

Background

A number of studies have shown that E-test overestimated the presence of Helicobacter pylori resistance compared to agar dilution.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to explore whether E-test could be an alternative for agar dilution to detect the metronidazole susceptibility of H. pylori.

Method

E-test and agar dilution were used to assess the susceptibility of H. pylori to metronidazole, clarithromycin, and levofloxacin in 281 clinical isolates obtained from China where the resistance was high. Cohen’s kappa analysis, McNemar’s test, and essential and categorical agreement analysis were performed for these two methods.

Results

Overall, the result of the E-test showed a similar prevalence of resistance rate to all antibiotics compared with agar dilution. The essential agreement of the E-test method and agar dilution in the evaluation susceptibility of H. pylori to clarithromycin and levofloxacin was moderate at 89.0 and 79.7%, respectively, but only 45.9% for metronidazole. The results shown by a categorical agreement (CA) between the E-test and agar dilution were 100% for both clarithromycin and levofloxacin. As for metronidazole, the CA was 98.7%, no major error was identified, and the rate of a very major error was 1.8%.

Conclusion

E-test can be an alternative method to detect the metronidazole susceptibility of H. pylori.

Susceptibility-guided versus empirical treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Empirical therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is limited by increasing antibiotic resistance and suboptimal eradication rates. Studies of the relative effectiveness of susceptibility-guided therapy have produced conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether susceptibility-guided therapy is superior to empirical therapy for H. pylori infection.

METHODS

We searched articles listed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science through May 25, 2020, RCTs comparing susceptibility-guided versus empirical therapy for H. pylori infection. Outcomes, including effectiveness and safety, were analyzed in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our final analysis included 16 studies, comprising 2374 patients who received susceptibility-guided therapy and 2451 patients who received empirical treatment. In previously untreated subjects, susceptibility-guided therapy was slightly more effective than empirical therapy (intent to treat risk ratio [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.21; P < 0.0001, I²  = 75%). Susceptibility-guided therapy was superior to first-line clarithromycin-based triple therapy only when clarithromycin resistance exceeded 20% (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.30; P = 0.001, I²  = 81%). Susceptibility-guided therapy was not more effective than empirical quadruple therapy (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.13; P = 0.759, I²  = 80%). Three RCTs were performed exclusively among previously treated subjects, and were highly heterogeneous.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that susceptibility-guided treatment may be slightly superior to empirical first line triple therapy. Susceptibility- guided treatment does not appear to be superior to empirical first-line quadruple therapy or empirical rescue therapy.

Empirical or susceptibility-guided treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection? A comprehensive review

Although susceptibility-guided therapy is frequently recommended for Helicobacter pylori infection, the evidence available to date supporting this strategy is limited. The aim of the present article is to review the advantages and limitations of the susceptibility-guided and the empirical strategies to treat this infection. We performed a bibliographic search to identify studies investigating H. pylori susceptibility-guided therapy. Culture is not the only way to assess antibiotic resistance, as different polymerase chain reaction-based approaches have been developed as alternative methods. For detecting H. pylori antimicrobial resistance, a molecular approach based on a stool sample might enable more convenient, time-saving methods. Unfortunately, the antimicrobial susceptibility cannot be obtained in all cases. Furthermore, antibiotic susceptibility testing in clinical practice yields useful information only for a few antibiotics: clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones. In addition, susceptibility towards clarithromycin and metronidazole in vitro does not necessarily lead to eradication in vivo. In the case of H. pylori therapy failure, we should not re-administer any of the antibiotics against which H. pylori has probably become resistant. Our updated meta-analysis showed that susceptibility-guided treatment is not better than empirical treatment of H. pylori infection in first-line therapy if the most updated quadruple regimens are empirically prescribed, and similar efficacy results were also demonstrated with the two strategies for second-line therapy. Cumulative H. pylori eradication rate with several successive rescue therapies empirically prescribed reaches almost 100%. Finally, the studies that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the susceptibility-guided treatment have achieved contradictory results. In summary, we can conclude that the evidence is too limited to support the generalized use of susceptibility-guided therapy for H. pylori treatment in routine clinical practice, either as first-line or as rescue treatment. Nevertheless, it would be recommended that susceptibility tests are performed routinely, even before prescribing first-line treatment, in specialized centers with an interest in H. pylori management.

Randomised controlled trial: susceptibility-guided therapy versus empiric bismuth quadruple therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori treatment

BACKGROUND

Increasing Helicobacter pylori resistance has led to decreases in treatment effectiveness.

AIM

To test the effectiveness of susceptibility-guided therapy vs a locally highly effective empiric modified bismuth quadruple therapy for first-line H pylori treatment in a region with high antimicrobial resistance.

METHODS

We compared 14-day susceptibility-guided with empiric therapy using a multicentre superiority-design trial, which randomised H pylori infected subjects 3:1 to (a) susceptibility-guided therapies contained esomeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 1 g b.d. plus clarithromycin 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg b.d., or levofloxacin 500 mg daily for susceptible infections or bismuth 220 mg b.d. and metronidazole 400 mg q.d.s. for triple-resistant infections; (b) Empiric therapy contained esomeprazole 20 mg, bismuth 220 mg b.d., amoxicillin 1 g and metronidazole 400 mg t.d.s. Primary outcome was H pylori eradication.

RESULTS

Between February 2017 and March 2018, 491 subjects were screened and 382 were randomised. Both the susceptibility-guided and the empiric regimens were highly successful with per-protocol eradication rates of 97.7% (250/256) vs 97.6% (81/83, P = 1.00) and intent-to-treat eradication rates of 91.6% (262/286) vs 85.4% (82/96, P = 0.12). Overall, susceptibility-guided therapy was not superior to empiric therapy with 0.1% per-protocol (95% CI -3.1% to 3.2%) and 6.2% intent-to-treat (-0.3% to 12.7%) eradication difference. Both approaches had high adherence and low adverse event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Both susceptibility-guided and empiric therapies provided excellent eradication rates. Clinically, the choice would hinge on availability of susceptibility testing and/or a locally highly effective empiric therapy.

Systematic review: third-line susceptibility-guided treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Susceptibility-guided therapies (SGTs) have been proposed as preferable to empirical rescue treatments after two treatment failures. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of SGT as third-line therapy.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in multiple databases. Studies reporting cure rates of Helicobacter pylori with SGT in third-line therapy were selected. A qualitative analysis describing the current evidence and a pooled mean analysis summarizing the cure rates of SGT in third-line therapy was performed.

RESULTS

No randomized controlled trials or comparative studies were found. Four observational studies reported cure rates with SGT in third-line treatment, and three studies which mixed patients with second- and third-line treatment also reported cure rates with SGT. The majority of the studies included the patients when culture had been already obtained, and so the effectiveness of SGT and empirical therapy has never been compared. A pooled mean analysis including four observational studies (283 patients) showed intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates with SGT of 72% (95% confidence interval 56-87%; I(2) : 92%) and 80% (95% confidence interval 71-90%; I(2) : 80%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SGT may be an acceptable option as rescue treatment. However, cure rates are, at best, moderate and this approach has never been compared with a well-devised empirical therapy. The evidence in favor of SGT as rescue therapy is currently insufficient to recommend its use.

Tailored Therapy Versus Empiric Chosen Treatment for Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Meta-Analysis

Although various regimens are empirically accepted for Helicobacter pylori eradication, the efficacy might be declined by multiple individual factors. The necessity of a personalized eradication therapy still remains controversial. The aim of the study was to compare tailored therapy with empiric chosen regimens. Databases of PUBMED, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were searched for eligible studies, published up to October 2015. All relevant controlled clinical trials were included. A random-effect model was applied to compare pooled relative risk (RR) with related 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Thirteen controlled clinical trials integrating 3512 participants were assessed. Overall, the pooled eradication rates of tailored groups were higher than those of empiric ones (intention-to-treat: RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.10-1.22; preprotocol: RR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.08-1.21). In subgroup analysis, tailored therapy was superior to 7-day standard triple therapy (RR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.16-1.29) and bismuth-quadruple therapy (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.22) on eradication rates; first-line tailored therapy achieved higher eradication rates than first-line empirical regimens (pooled RR = 1.18, 95%CI 1.14-1.22), whereas tailored rescue regimen showed no difference with empirical ones (pooled RR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.96-1.39). Moreover, among different tailored designs, susceptibility-guided tailored therapy obtained higher eradication rates than empiric groups, independent of CYP2C19 genotype detection (with CYP: RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.09-1.23; without CYP: RR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28). Both molecular test-based and culture-based tailored groups were better on eradication rates than empiric groups (molecular: RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.11-1.35; culture: RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20). Compared with empiric chosen treatments, tailored therapy is a better alternative for H pylori eradication.

Editorial--Avoiding Unethical Helicobacter pylori Clinical Trials: Susceptibility-Based Studies and Probiotics as Adjuvants

As a general rule, any clinical study where the result is already known or when the investigator(s) compares an assigned treatment against another assigned treatment known to be ineffective in the study population (e.g., in a population with known clarithromycin resistance) is unethical. As susceptibility-based therapy will always be superior to empiric therapy in any population with a prevalence of antimicrobial resistance >0%, any trial that randomizes susceptibility-based therapy with empiric therapy would be unethical. The journal Helicobacter welcomes susceptibility or culture-guided studies, studies of new therapies, and studies of adjuvants and probiotics. However, the journal will not accept for review any study we judge to be lacking clinical equipoise or which assign subjects to a treatment known to be ineffective, such as a susceptibility-based clinical trial with an empiric therapy comparator. To assist authors, we provide examples and suggestions regarding trial design for comparative studies, for susceptibility-based studies, and for studies testing adjuvants or probiotics.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: susceptibility-guided versus empirical antibiotic treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

The cure rate of standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is unacceptably low. Susceptibility-guided therapies (SGTs) have been proposed as an alternative to standard empirical treatments. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of SGTs.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in multiple databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing cure rates of SGTs versus those of empirical therapy were selected and analysed separately for first- and second-line treatments. A meta-analysis was performed using risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT) to measure the effect.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. In first-line treatment, SGT was more efficacious than empirical 7-10 day triple therapy (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10-1.23, I (2) = 33%; NNT = 8). Most studies used a 7-10 day triple therapy and randomized the patients after endoscopy and/or culture, thus precluding the comparison of SGT versus non-invasive testing and empirical treatment in clinical practice. For second-line therapy, only four studies were found. Results were highly heterogeneous and no significant differences were found (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.82-1.51, I (2) = 87%).

CONCLUSIONS

Once endoscopy and culture have been performed, SGT is superior to empirical 7 or 10 day triple therapy for first-line treatment. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of SGT in clinical practice, especially when compared with currently recommended first-line quadruple therapies.

Pretreatment antimicrobial susceptibility-guided vs. clarithromycin-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication in a region with high rates of multiple drug resistance

OBJECTIVES

Helicobacter pylori eradication rates with clarithromycin-based triple therapy are declining, and an alternative strategy is needed urgently. We sought to compare the efficacy of pretreatment antimicrobial susceptibility-guided vs. clarithromycin-based triple therapy for H. pylori eradication in a region with high rates of multiple drug resistance.

METHODS

Consecutive H. pylori-infected patients with gastric epithelial neoplasms were randomized to receive antimicrobial susceptibility-guided therapy or clarithromycin-based triple therapy for 7 days. In patients in whom the infection was not eradicated, antibiotics were given according to an initial antimicrobial susceptibility test as a second-line therapy in both groups. Eradication rates, antibiotics resistance rates, and drug compliance owing to adverse effects were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

In total, 114 patients were enrolled, and 112 completed the protocols. Drug compliance and side effects were similar between the groups. The intention-to-treat eradication rates were 94.7% (95% confidence interval (CI)=88.8-100%, 54/57) in the antimicrobial susceptibility-guided group and 71.9% (95% CI=60.2-83.5%, 41/57) in the clarithromycin-based triple therapy group after the initial treatment (P=0.002), whereas the per-protocol (PP) eradication rates were 96.4% (95% CI=91.5-100%, 54/56) in the antimicrobial susceptibility-guided group and 73.2% (95% CI=61.5-84.8%, 41/56) in the clarithromycin-based triple therapy group (P=0.001). In H. pylori with clarithromycin resistance, the eradication failure rate with first-line treatment was lower in the susceptibility-guided therapy group (0%, 0/12) compared with the clarithromycin-based triple therapy group (80.0%, 95% CI=59.7-100%, 12/15) by PP analysis (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment antimicrobial susceptibility-guided therapy is more effective than clarithromycin-based triple therapy for H. pylori eradication in a region with high rates of multiple drug resistance.

A randomized controlled trial: efficacy and safety of azithromycin, ofloxacin, bismuth, and omeprazole compared with amoxicillin, clarithromycin, bismuth, and omeprazole as second-line therapy in patients with Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori infection of the stomach is widespread among human populations and is considered to play a major role in the pathogenesis of various diseases such as peptic ulcer, adenocarcinoma, and mucosa associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma of the stomach. To increase H. pylori eradication rate without increasing bacterial resistance, various regimens have been recommended. Commonly the association of at least two antibiotics with a proton-pump inhibitor is used. The treatment regimens for second-line therapy, suggested in studies from the western world may not be ideal in Iran.

AIM

In this study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of a new quadruple therapy regimen and compared it with the standard second-line treatment for H. pylori eradication.

METHODS

We selected 220 H. pylori positive patients, with a clear indication of eradication therapy, who did not respond to a 2 weeks treatment with metronidazole, amoxicillin, omeprazole, and bismuth. They were randomized into two groups. Group A (n = 110) were treated with azithromycin, ofloxacin, bismuth, and omeprazole and group B (n = 110) with amoxicillin, clarithromycin, bismuth, and omeprazole for 2 weeks. Four weeks after the end of treatment, urea breath test was performed for all subjects to confirm eradication.

RESULTS

In intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of H. pylori eradication in groups A and B was 77.3% (85/110) and 64.5% (71/110) respectively (p = .027). In per-protocol analysis, the rate of H. pylori eradication in groups A and B was 86.7 and 74.7%, respectively (p = .026). The incidence of poor compliance was lower, although not significantly so, in group A than group B (3.5 vs 4.3%). No major adverse events occurred in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Two weeks of treatment with ofloxacin, azithromycin, omeprazole, and bismuth is an effective and safe regimen for H. pylori eradication as second-line therapy.

Is antimicrobial susceptibility testing necessary before first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection? Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

With the wide use of antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant Helicobacter pylori strains are becoming increasingly prevalent. It has been hypothesized that culture-guided therapy might help to increase treatment success. But the effects and the costs still remain controversial.

AIMS

To systematically review the efficacy and the cost of culture-guided triple therapy, compared to standard triple regimen for first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection.

METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CBM was performed. Randomized controlled trials comparing culture-guided triple therapy to standard triple therapy in the first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection were selected for meta-analysis. Relative risk was used as a measure of the effect of two regimens mentioned above with a fixed-effects model using the methods of DerSimonian and Laird.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials totaling 701 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that culture-guided triple therapy was superior referring to a higher eradication rate from intention-to-treat analyses (RR, 0.84; 95% CI,0.77, 0.90; p<0.00001) and a lower overall cost.

CONCLUSION

Culture-guided triple therapy was more effective than standard triple therapy for first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Based on the only paper focused on the overall cost, the culture-guided triple therapy was also more cost saving. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing is necessary before first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection.

Identification and molecular characterization of triple- and quadruple-resistant Helicobacter pylori clinical isolates in Germany

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to estimate the frequency of triple- and quadruple-resistant Helicobacter pylori isolated in Germany, to characterize those isolates molecular genetically and to identify risk factors for the development of multiresistance.

METHODS

Antimicrobial susceptibility to metronidazole, clarithromycin, amoxicillin, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin/levofloxacin and rifampicin in 1118 clinical isolates obtained between July 2006 and December 2007 was tested by the Etest method. For patients harbouring triple- or quadruple-resistant strains (n = 169), data on prior eradication therapies and underlying diseases were collected and evaluated. A select number of quadruple- and triple-resistant strains were examined for resistance-mediating mutations in their 23S rRNA, 16S rRNA, gyrA and rpoB genes, respectively.

RESULTS

From 1118 clinical isolates, 13.4% (n = 150) showed phenotypic resistance to metronidazole, clarithromycin and quinolones and 0.9% (n = 10) to metronidazole, clarithromycin and rifampicin; one isolate exhibited resistance to clarithromycin, quinolones and rifampicin. In eight isolates (0.7%), we detected phenotypic quadruple resistance to metronidazole, clarithromycin, quinolones and rifampicin or tetracycline. Triple- and quadruple-resistant strains harboured resistance-associated mutations in their 23S rRNA, 16S rRNA, gyrA or rpoB genes and were nearly exclusively isolated from patients who had already been unsuccessfully treated on multiple occasions.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that more than 15% of H. pylori strains isolated from routine samples in the German National Reference Centre are resistant to three or more antimicrobials and identified prior unsuccessful eradication therapies as a key factor for the development of multiresistance. Our data emphasize the need for further comprehensive surveillance studies monitoring the role of treatment regimens in antimicrobial resistance in H. pylori.

The efficacy of bismuth containing quadruple therapy as a first-line treatment option for Helicobacter pylori

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori eradication rates have tended to decrease recently, mostly due to increasing antibiotic-resistance. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of bismuth-based quadruple regimen with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimen for eradication of H. pylori.

METHODS

Consecutive H. pylori-positive patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia were randomized into one of two regimens: (i) bismuth subsalicylate 300 mg q.i.d., lansoprazole 30 mg b.i.d., tetracycline 500 mg q.i.d. and metronidazole 500 mg t.i.d. (BLTM group) for 14 days; (ii) lansoprazole 30 mg b.i.d., amoxicillin 1 g b.i.d and clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d. (LAC) for 14 days. Gastroscopy and (14)C-Urea breath test (UBT) were performed before enrollment, and UBT only was repeated for 6 weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients were randomized into groups and 212 of them completed the protocols. The 'intention-to-treat' (ITT) and 'per protocol' (PP) H. pylori eradication rates were 70% (95%CI 61-78) and 82.3% (95%CI 74-89) in the BLTM group, and 57.5% (95%CI 48-66) and 62.7% (95%CI 53-71) in the LAC group. The BLTM treatment achieved a significantly better eradication rate compared with LAC treatment in PP analysis (82.3% vs. 62.7%, P = 0.002). Mild to severe side-effects, which were more frequent in the BLTM group, were reported in 18.2% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The bismuth-based quadruple regimen achieved a better eradication rate compared with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimens as a first-line eradication option for H. pylori in our population.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori with triple therapy: an epidemiologic analysis of trends in Turkey over 10 years

BACKGROUND

There is increasing concern about the efficacy of current regimens for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined rates of H. pylori eradication with a commonly used triple-therapy regimen consisting of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), clarithromycin, and amoxicillin in trials performed in Turkey from 1996 to 2005. It also investigated the relationship between eradication rates and the duration of treatment (7, 10, or 14 days), choice of PPI, and indication for treatment (dyspepsia or peptic ulcer).

METHODS

This was a retrospective epidemiologic analysis. Articles concerning H. pylori eradication in Turkey that were published in peer-reviewed national and international journals were identified through searches of MEDLINE using the terms Helicobacter, eradication, and Turkey, and of the Turkish Medical Index using the terms Helicobacter and eradication. Abstracts from the Turkish Gastroenterology Congress from 1996 through 2005 were searched manually. Open-label trials, controlled trials, treatment arms, and case series that included a triple-therapy regimen consisting of standard doses of any PPI (omeprazole 20 mg BID, lansoprazole 30 mg BID, pantoprazole 40 mg BID, or esomeprazole 40 mg BID) with clarithromycin 500 mg BID and amoxicillin 1 g BID for 7 to 14 days were selected for analysis. Trials including patients who had undergone a previous attempt at eradication of H. pylori were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 138 trials or treatment arms identified, 94 met the criteria for inclusion (3637 subjects). The pooled eradication rate was 68.8% (95% CI, 67.3-70.3). A marked decrease in eradication was noted after 2000. Pooled eradication rates each year from 1996 through 2005 were 79.4%, 83.7%, 81.8%, 81.8%, 75.1%, 61.3%, 65.6%, 65.1%, 55.3%, and 61.1%, respectively. Eradication rates were not affected by the duration of treatment, choice of PPI, or indication for treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of H. pylori eradication with the triple-therapy regimen decreased in Turkey over the 10-year period studied. In an era of increasing clarithromycin use, the effectiveness of this regimen for H. pylori eradication appears to require reassessment.

Effective regimens for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection

Successful Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy remains a challenge in medical practice. Currently, a proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy containing clarithromycin, amoxicillin or nitroimidazole for 7 days is the recommended first-line treatment approach with an expected eradication success rate of approximately 80%. As a second-line treatment option in the case of failure, a ranitidine bismuth citrate-based quadruple therapy is currently recommended curing another 80% of patients, leaving a subset of patients with persistent H. pylori infection. For these patients, promising rescue options have been evaluated including regimens that contain rifabutin, quinolones, furazolidone or high-dose amoxicillin. The role of susceptibility testing is still under discussion. It is not generally recommended prior to first-line treatment but guidelines propose a role for culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing after failure of the second attempt. Meanwhile, data on the geographic distribution of resistance pattern are available and may guide therapeutic decisions with regard to the combination of antibiotics chosen for the individual patients aiming at 100% cure rate in each individual patient.

Efficacy of rifabutin-based triple therapy in Helicobacter pylori infected patients after two standard treatments

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Even with the current most effective treatment regimens for Helicobacter pylori infection, a considerable number of patients will be resistant to eradication. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the H. pylori eradication rate in patients resistant to standard therapies when treated with a triple therapy of pantoprazole, rifabutin and amoxicillin.

METHODS

Ninety-two consecutive patients diagnosed with H. pylori infection resistant to two previous treatment regimens were treated with pantoprazole, rifabutin and amoxicillin for 10 days. The persistence or eradication of H. pylori was determined by a 13C-urea breath test performed 4 weeks after the treatment.

RESULTS

Per protocol eradication was achieved in 62.2% of patients and the intention-to-treat eradication was 60.8%. Only two patients were excluded for adverse events related to the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The eradication rate is acceptable as a third-line therapy, particularly in centers with high cure rate for first line therapy. Another important value of this study is the good tolerance for the treatment observed in our patients. It is possible that rifabutin-based triple therapy may be of use in hospital centers that do not have disposable culture and susceptibility methods against H. pylori.

Quinolone resistance in Helicobacter pylori isolates in Germany

We show that quinolone resistance in Helicobacter pylori has reached an alarming level in Germany. Our data suggest that the use of quinolones requires prior antimicrobial susceptibility testing, especially for isolates from patients who have already undergone previous unsuccessful eradication treatments, and also underline the further need for surveillance studies to monitor antibiotic resistance in H. pylori.

Can Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens be shortened in clinical practice? An open-label, randomized, pilot study of 4 and 7-day triple therapy with rabeprazole, high-dose levofloxacin, and tinidazole

BACKGROUND

Rabeprazole is a proton pump inhibitor which is particularly suitable for use in short-term Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment. Levofloxacin-based H. pylori eradication regimens have shown good efficacy and very few side effects. Shorter treatment and absence of significant side effects should improve compliance to therapy and increase the Hp H. pylori eradication rate.

AIMS

To evaluate the effectiveness of 2 rabeprazole-based H. pylori eradication regimens in an open-label, randomized study carried out in a clinical practice setting.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-nine consecutive, treatment-naive patients with H. pylori infection were randomized to receive rabeprazole (20 mg, bid), levofloxacin (500 mg, bid), and tinidazole (500 mg, bid) for either 4 [4-d rabeprazole, levofloxacin, tinidazole (RLT), n=85] or 7 days (7-d RLT, n=84). Before treatment, all patients underwent upper digestive endoscopy. Cure rates were assessed by means of C-urea breath test. and were compared with the eradication rate obtained with standard triple therapy in our Unit (ie, 78%) and average eradication rate reported in the literature (ie, 79%).

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat eradication rates were 94% [87% to 98%, 95% confidence interval (CI)] and 95% (88% to 99%, 95% CI) in the 4-day RLT and 7-day RLT regimens, respectively, whereas per-protocol eradication rates were 95% (88% to 99%, 95% CI) in the 4-day RLT and 96% (90% to 99%, 95% CI) in the 7-day RLT. Both treatment regimens obtained significantly higher eradication rates as compared with standard triple therapy. The 4-day RLT showed significantly fewer side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In a clinical practice setting, both 4-day and 7-day rabeprazole, high-dose levofloxacin, tinidazole-based regimens achieved relevant H. pylori eradication rates in treatment-naive patients. The lower number of side effects makes the shorter treatment regimen preferable over the conventional 7-day treatment.

[Helicobacter pylori resistance: who needs what treatment?]

The standard treatment recommended for eradication of Helicobacter pylori is a combination of three drugs for seven days: one proton pump inhibitor at a double dose and two antibiotics. The high risk of failure - on the order of 30% - justifies routine testing to verify eradication after this first treatment. Verification is most often conducted with a urea breath test, more rarely by endoscopy when endoscopy or gastric histology is otherwise necessary. When eradication fails, longer multidrug treatment with different antibiotics is proposed. The failure rate after second-line treatment is 9-10%. If a third treatment is necessary, bacterial culture is recommended to select antibiotics on the basis of the antibiotic susceptibility testing.

One-week once-daily triple therapy with esomeprazole, levofloxacin and azithromycin compared to a standard therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

Primary antibiotic-resistance and poor compliance are the main causes of Helicobacter pylori eradication failure of standard regimens.

AIM

To investigate eradication rate, patient compliance and tolerability of a 1-week once-daily levofloxacin plus azithromycin triple therapy versus the standard twice-daily triple therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 164 H. pylori-positive patients were randomised to either esomeprazole 20mg, levofloxacin 500 mg and azithromycin 500 mg once-daily (ELAz) or esomeprazole 20mg, clarithromycin 500 mg and amoxycillin 1g twice-daily (ECA) for 1 week. H. pylori infection was defined at entry by histology and urea breath test; cure of infection was determined both by negative urea breath test and H. pylori stool antigens.

RESULTS

H. pylori eradication rates of ELAz and ECA were similar at intention-to-treat (both 65%) and per-protocol analyses (70% versus 76%, respectively). Incidence of poor compliance was lower, although not significantly, in patients randomised to ELAz than to ECA (4% versus 10%); tolerability was significantly higher for ELAz than for ECA (88% versus 70%; P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily levofloxacin plus azithromycin-based triple therapy achieves an H. pylori eradication rate comparable to that of standard twice-daily triple therapy, but is associated with higher patient compliance and might even be better tolerated.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori: recent advances in treatment

Helicobacter pylori plays a key role in dyspepsia, peptic ulcer disease, and gastric neoplasia and eradication of the infection has become an important treatment goal in clinical practice. Seven-day proton-pump inhibitor-amoxicillin-clarithromycin triple therapy is the current first-line therapy for H. pylori but eradication rates are compromised by poor compliance and antibiotic resistance. Ten-day sequential treatment may emerge as an alternative first-line therapy. Bismuth-based quadruple therapy is the second-line regimen of choice. Antimicrobial sensitivity testing is not recommended in the routine management of H. pylori infection. Novel triple-therapy regimens containing rifabutin, levofloxacin, or furazolidone may be useful alternatives as second- or third-line therapy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: proton pump inhibitor vs. ranitidine bismuth citrate plus two antibiotics in Helicobacter pylori eradication

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the Helicobacter pylori eradication efficacy with ranitidine bismuth citrate (RBC) and two antibiotics, and to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) vs. RBC with two antibiotics for 1 week.

SELECTION OF STUDIES

Studies evaluating RBC plus two antibiotics were considered. For the meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials comparing PPI vs. RBC plus two antibiotics for 1 week were included.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic and manual bibliographical searches. Assessment of study quality and data extraction: Independently done by two reviewers.

DATA SYNTHESIS

'Intention-to-treat' eradication rate. Meta-analysis was performed, combining the odds ratios (OR) of the individual studies. Subanalysis: Depending on the type of antibiotics and the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Mean H. pylori eradication with 7-day RBC-clarithromycin-amoxicillin, RBC-clarithromycin-nitroimidazole, and RBC-amoxicillin-nitroimidazole was 83%, 86%, and 71%, respectively. The meta-analysis showed comparable efficacy with RBC and PPI when they were combined with clarithromycin and amoxicillin (OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.88-1.40), or with amoxicillin and metronidazole (OR = 0.92; 95%CI = 0.60-1.41). However, when comparing PPI vs. RBC plus clarithromycin and a nitroimidazole, higher cure rates with RBC than with PPI were demonstrated (OR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.15-2.37).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of RBC and PPI-based triple regimens were comparable when using the clarithromycin-amoxicillin or the amoxicillin-metronidazole combination. However, RBC seems to have a higher efficacy than PPI when clarithromycin and a nitroimidazole are the antibiotics prescribed. Therefore, if one prefers to use the clarithromycin-nitroimidazole regimen, RBC should be used instead of a PPI.

Antibiotic-resistant Helicobacter pylori strains in Portuguese children

BACKGROUND

Data concerning the effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens based in antibiotic susceptibility testing are scanty in children.

AIMS

To identify the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in H. pylori strains isolated from Portuguese children in 1999-2003; to evaluate eradication rate after antibiotic susceptibility testing-based treatment; and to identify factors associated with resistance and eradication outcome.

METHODS

Included were 109 children with a gastric biopsy culture positive for H. pylori. First treatment (amoxicillin, omeprazole and clarithromycin or metronidazole) was guided by susceptibility testing (E test), and eradication was assessed by [C]urea breath test.

RESULTS

Strains were susceptible to amoxicillin and tetracycline; 39.4% were resistant to clarithromycin, 16.5% to metronidazole and 4.5% to ciprofloxacin. No significant association was found between resistance and sex, age, clinical status, gastritis scores, H. pylori density scores and genotype. Clarithromycin resistance was significantly associated with European origin [odds ratio (OR), 3.9], previous H. pylori empiric therapy (OR 2.8) and amoxicillin minimal inhibitory concentration, > or =0.016 (OR 6.0). Eradication rate after susceptibility-based treatment was 74.7% (59 of 79; 95% confidence interval, 65.9-82.9), and a significant association was found between eradication failure and presence of resistance to 1 or more antibiotics (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of H. pylori antibiotic resistance was high in the studied population. The modest therapeutic success of clarithromycin and metronidazole susceptibility-based regimens suggests that in addition to resistance, other factors may be involved. The need of susceptibility-based treatment studies in children and of antimicrobial resistance surveillance in high prevalence areas for H. pylori are emphasized.

Update on Therapeutic Options for Helicobacter pylori-related Diseases

Triple therapy including clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) has been recommended as the treatment of choice for Helicobacter pylori eradication. This regimen is now challenged by an increasing level of clarithromycin resistance that jeopardizes the treatment success. When clarithromycin resistance has been detected, or when its rate is known to be high in the geographic area, this drug cannot be used. It can be replaced by metronidazole, the resistance of which has a limited clinical relevance. Another option is to prescribe tetracycline and metronidazole with a PPI or ranitidine bismuth citrate. New antibiotics such as levofloxacin or rifabutin can also be used in combination with amoxicillin and a PPI. Probiotics can be added to all of these regimens to improve compliance by decreasing adverse events. But some authors advocate a quadruple therapy as a first-line treatment. Solutions to improve the limitations of this last regimen are now being proposed. Clarification of the controversial treatment indications such as gastroesophageal reflux disease or prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastroduodenal symptoms has been made. The question of prevention of gastric carcinoma by H. pylori eradication remains unanswered.

Molecular biology methods for the characterization of Helicobacter pylori infections and their diagnosis

Helicobacter pylori infects approximately half of the human population; however, the outcome of infection is affected by many factors, including strain and host genotype characteristics and bacterial density within the stomach. Many molecular methods have been developed to provide information with respect to these characteristics. Methods that provide results within 24 h of endoscopy may be used to develop individualized treatment that is more effective, results in fewer side effects, cuts costs,decreases the number of treatment failures and results in the development of fewer antibiotic-resistant H. pylori strains.

Therapy of Helicobacter pylori

This represents an overview of the main data published over the last year on the therapy of Helicobacter pylori. The problem of increasing failure of H. pylori eradication has been the main focus, with increasing resistance and poor patient compliance being the main culprits. Simple regimens are necessary to improve patient compliance. New antibiotics and novel agents are appraised with mixed results.