Bismuth quadruple regimen with tetracycline or doxycycline versus three-in-one single capsule as third-line rescue therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: Spanish data of the European Helicobacter pylori Registry (Hp-EuReg)

Minocycline vs. tetracycline in bismuth-containing quadruple therapy for Helicobacter pylori rescue treatment: a multicentre, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of minocycline vs. tetracycline in bismuth-containing quadruple therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) rescue treatment.

METHODS

This study was a multi-center, randomized-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Refractory H. pylori-infected subjects with multiple treatment-failure were randomly (1:1) allocated to receive 14-day therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d, bismuth 220 mg b.i.d, plus metronidazole 400 mg q.i.d and minocycline 100 mg b.i.d (minocycline group) or tetracycline 500 mg q.i.d (tetracycline group). Primary outcome was H. pylori eradication rate evaluated by 13C-urea breath test at least 6 weeks after the end of treatment. Antibiotic resistance was determined using E test method.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty-eight subjects were randomized. The eradication rates in minocycline group and tetracycline group were 88.0% (162/184, 95% CI 83.3-92.8%) and 88.6% (163/184, 95% CI 83.9-93.2%) in intention-to-treat analysis, 98.0% (149/152, 95% CI 95.8-100%) and 97.4% (150/154, 95% CI 94.9-99.9%) in per-protocol analysis, 93.1% (162/174, 95% CI 89.3-96.9%) and 93.1% (163/175, 95% CI 89.4-96.9%) in modified intention-to-treat analysis. Minocycline, tetracycline and metronidazole resistance rates were 0.7%, 1.4% and 89.6%, respectively. Non-inferiority of minocycline was confirmed (P < 0.025). Metronidazole resistance did not affect the efficacy of either therapy. The two therapies exhibited comparable frequencies of adverse events (55.4% vs. 53.3%); almost half of them were mild. Dizziness was the most common adverse events in the minocycline group.

CONCLUSIONS

Minocycline can be an alternative for tetracycline in bismuth-containing quadruple therapy for H. pylori empirical rescue treatment, irrespective of metronidazole resistance. However, relatively high incidence of adverse events in both regimens should be emphasized.

Third-line and rescue therapy for refractory Helicobacter pylori infection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Due to increasing resistance rates of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against H. pylori infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory H. pylori infection.

AIM

To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory H. pylori infection.

METHODS

A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory H. pylori infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of H. pylori infection rescue therapies were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera^® (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis.

CONCLUSION

We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.

Patai Á, Hajiani E, Abravesh AA. Levofloxacin+Tetracycline Quadruple Regimen for Eradication of Helicobacter pylori: A Multicenter Multinational Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The ideal combination regimen for Helicobacter pylori (HP) eradication has not yet been determined and the success rate of HP eradication has been extensively reduced worldwide due to increasing antibiotic resistance. So this multinational multi-center randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of tetracycline +levofloxacin for HP eradication. Methods: During a 6-month period, all of the cases with HP infection in eight referral tertiary centers of three countries were included and randomly allocated to receive either tetracycline + levofloxacin or clarithromycin plus amoxicillin quadruple regimen for two weeks. For all of the participants, pantoprazole was continued for 4 more weeks and after one to two weeks of off-therapy, they underwent urea breath test C13 to prove eradication. Results: Overall 788 patients were included (358 male (45.4%), average age 44.2 years). They were diagnosed as having non-ulcer dyspepsia (516 cases, 65.5%), peptic ulcer disease (PUD) (234 cases, 29.69%), and intestinal metaplasia (38 cases, 4.8%). Racially 63.1% were Caucasian, 14.5% Arab, 15.6% African, and 6.1% Asian. The participants were randomly allocated to groups A and B to receive either tetracycline + levofloxacin or clarithromycin. Among groups A and B in intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analysis, 75.2% & 82.1% (285 cases) and 67.5% & 70.1% (276 cases) of participants achieved eradication, respectively (P = 0.0001). The complete compliance rate in groups A and B were 84.4% and 83.6%, respectively. During the study, 33.5% of the participants in group A (127 cases) reported side effects while the complication rate among group B was 27.9% (114 cases, P = 0.041). The most common complaints among groups A and B were nausea and vomiting (12.6% & 9.3%) and abdominal pain (4.48% & 2.68%), respectively. The rate of severe complications that caused discontinuation of medication in groups A and B were 2.1% and 1.46%, respectively (P = 679). In subgroup analysis, the eradication rates of tetracycline+levofloxacin among patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia, PUD, and intestinal metaplasia were 79.4%, 88.1%, and 73.9%, respectively. These figures in group B (clarithromycin base) were 71.3%, 67.6%, and 61.5% respectively (P = 0.0001, 0.0001, and 0.043). Conclusion: Overall, the combination of tetracycline+levofloxacin is more efficient for HP eradication in comparison with clarithromycin+amoxicillin despite more complication rate. In areas with a high rate of resistance to clarithromycin, this therapeutic regimen could be an ideal choice for HP eradication, especially among those who were diagnosed with PUD.

Empirical rescue treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in third and subsequent lines: 8-year experience in 2144 patients from the European Registry on H. pylori management (Hp-EuReg)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use, effectiveness and safety of Helicobacter pylori empirical rescue therapy in third and subsequent treatment lines in Europe.

DESIGN

International, prospective, non-interventional registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists. Data were collected and quality reviewed until October 2021 at Asociación Española de Gastroenterología-Research Electronic Data Capture. All cases with three or more empirical eradication attempts were assessed for effectiveness by modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 2144 treatments were included: 1519, 439, 145 and 41 cases from third, fourth, fifth and sixth treatment lines, respectively. Sixty different therapies were used; the 15 most frequently prescribed encompassed >90% of cases. Overall effectiveness remained <90% in all therapies. Optimised treatments achieved a higher eradication rate than non-optimised (78% vs 67%, p<0.0001). From 2017 to 2021, only 44% of treatments other than 10-day single-capsule therapy used high proton-pump inhibitor doses and lasted ≥14 days. Quadruple therapy containing metronidazole, tetracycline and bismuth achieved optimal eradication rates only when prescribed as third-line treatment, either as 10-day single-capsule therapy (87%) or as 14-day traditional therapy with tetracycline hydrochloride (95%). Triple amoxicillin-levofloxacin therapy achieved 90% effectiveness in Eastern Europe only or when optimised. The overall incidence of adverse events was 31%.

CONCLUSION

Empirical rescue treatment in third and subsequent lines achieved suboptimal effectiveness in most European regions. Only quadruple bismuth-metronidazole-tetracycline (10-day single-capsule or 14-day traditional scheme) and triple amoxicillin-levofloxacin therapies reached acceptable outcomes in some settings. Compliance with empirical therapy optimisation principles is still poor 5 years after clinical practice guidelines update.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02328131.

Multiple Bismuth Quadruple Therapy Containing Tetracyclines Combined with Other Antibiotics and Helicobacter pylori Eradication Therapy

Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection is closely associated with the development of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer, and gastric cancer. However, the resistance rate of H. pylori strains to antibiotics such as clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin has increased significantly, resulting in a significant decrease in the eradication efficacy of commonly used regimens. Tetracycline has received the attention of domestic and foreign scholars because of its low resistance. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the tetracycline-containing bismuth quadruple eradication therapy for H. pylori infection and review the efficacy and safety of the regimens, hoping to provide guidance for clinical practice.

Treatment of refractory Helicobacter pylori infection: A new challenge for clinicians

Patients who have failed two or more attempts to eradicate Helicobacter pylori are commonly referred to as refractory. Although the incidence of refractory Helicobacter pylori infection is only 10–20%, with the increasing rate of antibiotic resistance in various regions, the treatment of refractory Helicobacter pylori infection has gradually become a difficult problem faced by clinicians. When choosing a rescue therapy, the physician must consider numerous factors. A longer treatment duration, higher doses of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), or the use of potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) may increase the efficacy of triple therapy or bismuth quadruple therapy. Rescue treatment based on bismuth quadruple therapy usually achieves better results. At the same time, treatment based on drug susceptibility tests or genotypic resistance is recommended where available. Of course, appropriate empiric treatment can also be selected according to local drug resistance, a patient’s previous medication history and compliance. It is the best choice if it can improve the success rate of the first treatment and reduce the occurrence of refractory Helicobacter pylori infection. This review aims to summarize the articles related to refractory Helicobacter pylori in recent years and to explore a better remedial treatment plan for clinicians.

Management of Helicobacter pylori infection: the Maastricht VI/Florence consensus report

Helicobacter pyloriInfection is formally recognised as an infectious disease, an entity that is now included in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision. This in principle leads to the recommendation that all infected patients should receive treatment. In the context of the wide clinical spectrum associated with Helicobacter pylori gastritis, specific issues persist and require regular updates for optimised management.The identification of distinct clinical scenarios, proper testing and adoption of effective strategies for prevention of gastric cancer and other complications are addressed. H. pylori treatment is challenged by the continuously rising antibiotic resistance and demands for susceptibility testing with consideration of novel molecular technologies and careful selection of first line and rescue therapies. The role of H. pylori and antibiotic therapies and their impact on the gut microbiota are also considered.Progress made in the management of H. pylori infection is covered in the present sixth edition of the Maastricht/Florence 2021 Consensus Report, key aspects related to the clinical role of H. pylori infection were re-evaluated and updated. Forty-one experts from 29 countries representing a global community, examined the new data related to H. pylori infection in five working groups: (1) indications/associations, (2) diagnosis, (3) treatment, (4) prevention/gastric cancer and (5) H. pylori and the gut microbiota. The results of the individual working groups were presented for a final consensus voting that included all participants. Recommendations are provided on the basis of the best available evidence and relevance to the management of H. pylori infection in various clinical fields.

V Spanish Consensus Conference on Helicobacter pylori infection treatment

Helicobacter pylori infection is very common in the Spanish population and represents the main cause of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer, and gastric cancer. The last iteration of Spanish consensus guidelines on H. pylori infection was conducted in 2016. Recent changes in therapeutic schemes along with increasing supporting evidence were key for developing the V Spanish Consensus Conference (May 2021). Fourteen experts performed a systematic review of the scientific evidence and developed a series of recommendations that were subjected to an anonymous Delphi process of iterative voting. Scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation were classified using GRADE guidelines. An eradication therapy, when prescribed empirically, is considered acceptable when it reliably achieves, or preferably surpass, 90% cure rates. Currently, only quadruple therapies (with or without bismuth) and generally lasting 14 days, accomplish this goal in first- and second-line therapies. A non-bismuth quadruple concomitant regimen (proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and metronidazole) or a quadruple bismuth-based combination (proton pump inhibitor, bismuth, tetracycline, and metronidazole), are recommended as first-line regimens. Rescue therapies after eradication failure and management of H. pylori infection in peptic ulcer disease were also reviewed.

Treatment regimens used in the management of Helicobacter pylori in Colombia

Background

Helicobacter pylori infection can cause gastritis, gastric ulcers, duodenal ulcers, and gastric cancer. Its treatment involves different medications, but resistance to these treatments is increasing. It is currently considered a public health problem.

Aims

to identify regimens used for H. pylori eradication by age group, year of treatment and geographical region of Colombia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study that identified regimens used H. pylori eradication in outpatient consultations over a 6-year period based on a medication dispensing database of 8.5 million people affiliated to the Colombian Health System. The appropriate regimens were those that included a proton pump inhibitor, associated with two antibiotics recommended by clinical practice guidelines (amoxicillin, clarithromycin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, tetracycline, doxycycline, metronidazole, tinidazole, and furazolidone).

Results

A total of 12,011 patients with a diagnosis of acid-peptic disease and H. pylori infection were identified, who had undergone 12,426 eradication treatment courses. Of these, 98.0% used a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and 91.1% used amoxicillin. A total of 56.1% of the regimens were considered adequate; of these, 42.0% were a combination of PPI, amoxicillin/clarithromycin. This regimen predominated between 2015 and 2017 for all age groups.

Conclusions

The management of H. pylori infection in the majority of patients is heterogeneous and inconsistent with current recommendations based on evidence of antimicrobial resistance.

Transitioning of Helicobacter pylori Therapy from Trial and Error to Antimicrobial Stewardship

Helicobacter pylori is the only major infection for which antimicrobial therapy is not designed using the principles of antimicrobial stewardship. Traditionally, antimicrobial therapy is a susceptibility-based therapy, achieves high cure rates, and includes surveillance programs to regularly provide updated data regarding resistance, outcomes, and treatment guidelines. Current H. pylori therapies identified by trial-and-error, and treatment recommendations and guidelines are based on comparisons among regimens that rarely take into account the prevalence or effect of resistance. The majority of patients currently treated achieve suboptimal results. A paradigm shift is required to abandon current approaches and embrace antimicrobial stewardship, and therefore reliably achieve high cure rates; develop, propagate, and update best practice guidelines; and provide surveillance of local or regional susceptibility/resistance patterns. These also require timely updates to clinicians regarding the current status of resistance, antimicrobial effectiveness, and ways to prevent antimicrobial misuse to extend the useful life of currently available antibiotics. Here, we discuss the differences among current approaches to H. pylori therapy and antimicrobial stewardship and identify what is required to achieve the transition. Conceptually, the differences are significant, and the transition will likely need to be both abrupt and complete. Recommendations for therapy during the transition period are given.