序贯疗法和标准三联疗法根除幽门螺杆菌的疗效比较

The Efficacy and Safety of Regimens for Helicobacter pylori Eradication Treatment in China: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

With Helicobacter pylori's increasing antibiotic resistance, evidence of more effective treatments is lacking in China, where H. pylori prevalence is nearly 50%. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare therapeutic regimens.

METHODS

Data extracted from eligible randomized controlled trials from January 2000 to September 2021 were entered into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model to evaluate the efficacy and safety of H. pylori eradication regimens.

RESULTS

This study included 101 trials involving 21,745 patients. Vonoprazan-bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (VBQT) ranked the highest [surfaces under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 83.64%], followed by high-dose amoxicillin dual therapy (HDDT) [SUCRA, 79.70%, odds ratio (OR)=1.31, 95% credible interval (CrI) (0.36, 4.72)] and proton pump inhibitor-based bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (BQT) [SUCRA, 63.59%, OR=1.59, 95% CrI (0.48, 5.24)]. HDDT [OR=2.47, 95% CrI (1.51, 4.06)], BQT [OR=2.04, 95% CrI (1.69, 2.47)], concomitant quadruple nonbismuth therapy (CT) [OR=1.93, 95% CrI (1.19, 3.15)], and sequential therapy (ST) [OR=1.86, 95% CrI (1.50, 2.32)] had higher eradication rates than standard triple therapy (TT). ST (SUCRA, 82.52%) and VBQT (SUCRA, 83.89%) had the highest eradication rate before and after 2010 in the effectiveness ranking, respectively. Furthermore, the H. pylori eradication rate of patients receiving 14-day BQT treatment was higher than that of 10-day BQT regimen [OR=2.55, 95% CI (1.84, 3.53)] and 7-day BQT regimen [OR=3.64, 95% CI (2.64, 5.01)].

CONCLUSIONS

The TT regimen was not an optimal choice in China for H. pylori eradication; VBQT, HDDT, and BQT showed better efficacy. After 2010, there is a trend toward significance that VBQT provided a higher H. pylori eradication rate in China, but with only 1 randomized controlled trial. Thus, more supportive real-world data are needed to confirm its effectiveness.

Sequential Therapy or Standard Triple Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Infection: An Updated Systematic Review

The effectiveness of standard triple therapy (STT) for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori has decreased recently. Sequential therapy (SQT) is a new regimen proposed to address this problem. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of SQT versus STT for H. pylori eradication. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases up to July 2014. The risk ratios (RRs) of eradication rate were pooled, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Thirty-six randomized clinical trials including a total of 10,316 patients met the inclusion criteria. The RR for eradication of H. pylori with SQT compared with STT was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.09-1.17), the eradication rates were 84.1% and 75.1%, respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between trial results (I = 73%; P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses showed that SQT was superior to both 7- and 10-day STT, but not significantly better than 14-day STT. This superiority existed when patients were treated with either metronidazole or tinidazole. Patients with single clarithromycin-resistant strain showed a greater benefit of SQT over STT (eradication rates 80.9% vs. 40.7%), RR = 1.98 (95% CI: 1.33-2.94). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of the risk of adverse effects. In conclusion, SQT is more efficacious than STT (7 days and 10 days) in the eradication of HP, but the pooled rate seemed suboptimal. Further research is needed to develop more effective therapeutic approaches. Surveillance of resistance rates should be performed to guide treatment.

Sequential therapy for 10 days versus triple therapy for 14 days in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in the community and hospital populations: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

Significant heterogeneity was observed in previous trials that assessed the efficacies of sequential therapy for 10 days (S10) versus triple therapy for 14 days (T14) in the first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori. We aimed to compare the efficacy of S10 and T14 and assess the factors affecting their efficacies.

DESIGN

We conducted this open-label randomised multicentre trial in eight hospitals and one community in Taiwan. 1300 adult subjects with H pylori infection naïve to treatment were randomised (1:1) to receive S10 (lansoprazole and amoxicillin for the first 5 days, followed by lansoprazole, clarithromycin and metronidazole for another 5 days) or T14 (lansoprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin for 14 days). All drugs were given twice daily. Successful eradication was defined as negative ¹³C-urea breath test at least 6 weeks after treatment. Our primary outcome was the eradication rate by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Antibiotic resistance was determined by agar dilution test.

RESULTS

The eradication rates of S10 and T14 were 87.2% (567/650, 95% CI 84.4% to 89.6%) and 85.7% (557/650, 95% CI 82.8% to 88.2%) in the ITT analysis, respectively, and were 91.6% (556/607, 95% CI 89.1% to 93.4%) and 91.0% (548/602, 95% CI 88.5% to 93.1%) in the PP analysis, respectively. There were no differences in compliance or adverse effects. The eradication rates in strains susceptible and resistant to clarithromycin were 90.7% and 62.2%, respectively, for S10, and were 91.5% and 44.4%, respectively, for T14. The efficacy of T14, but not S10, was affected by CYP2C19 polymorphism.

CONCLUSIONS

S10 was not superior to T14 in areas with low clarithromycin resistance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01607918.

Sequential versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

Non-bismuth quadruple sequential therapy (SEQ) comprising a first induction phase with a dual regimen of amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for five days followed by a triple regimen phase with a PPI, clarithromycin and metronidazole for another five days, has been suggested as a new first-line treatment option to replace the standard triple therapy (STT) comprising a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), clarithromycin and amoxicillin, in which eradication proportions have declined to disappointing levels.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of a SEQ regimen with STT for the eradication of H. pylori infection, and to compare the incidence of adverse effects associated with both STT and SEQ H. pylori eradication therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted bibliographical searches in electronic databases, and handsearched abstracts from Congresses up to April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 10-day SEQ and STT (of at least seven days) for the eradication of H. pylori. Participants were adults and children diagnosed as positive for H. pylori infection and naïve to H. pylori treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a pre-piloted, tabular summary to collect demographic and medical information of included study participants as well as therapeutic data and information related to the diagnosis and confirmatory tests.We evaluated the difference in intention-to-treat eradication between SEQ and STT regimens across studies, and assessed sources of the heterogeneity of this risk difference (RD) using subgroup analyses.We evaluated the quality of the evidence following Cochrane standards, and summarised it using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs with a total of 12,284 participants (6042 in SEQ and 6242 in STT). The overall analysis showed that SEQ was significantly more effective than STT (82% vs 75% in the intention-to-treat analysis; RD 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.11; P < 0.001, moderate-quality evidence). Results were highly heterogeneous (I² = 75%), and 20 studies did not demonstrate differences between therapies.Reporting by geographic region (RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12; studies = 44; I² = 75%, based on low-quality evidence) showed that differences between SEQ and STT were greater in Europe (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.19) when compared to Asia, Africa or South America. European studies also showed a tendency towards better efficacy with SEQ; however, this tendency was reversed in 33% of the Asian studies. Africa reported the closest risk difference (RD 0.14 , 95% 0.07 to 0.22) to Europe among studied regions, but confidence intervals were wider and therefore the quality of the evidence showing SEQ to be superior to STT was reduced for this region.Based on high-quality evidence, subgroup analyses showed that SEQ and STT therapies were equivalent when STT lasted for 14 days. Although, overall, the mean eradication proportion with SEQ was over 80%, we noted a tendency towards a lower average effect with this regimen in the more recent studies (2008 and after); weighted linear regression showed that the efficacies of both regimens evolved differently over the years, having a higher reduction in the efficacy of SEQ (-1.72% yearly) than in STT (-0.9% yearly). In these more recent studies (2008 and after) we were also unable to detect the superiority of SEQ over STT when STT was given for 10 days.Based on very low-quality evidence, subgroup analyses on antibiotic resistance showed that the widest difference in efficacy between SEQ and STT was in the subgroup analysis based on clarithromycin-resistant participants, in which SEQ reached a 75% average efficacy versus 43% with STT.Reporting on adverse events (AEs) (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; participants = 8103; studies = 27; I² = 26%, based on high-quality evidence) showed no significant differences between SEQ and STT (20.4% vs 19.5%, respectively) and results were homogeneous.The quality of the studies was limited due to a lack of systematic reporting of the factors affecting risk of bias. Although randomisation was reported, its methodology (e.g. algorithms, number of blocks) was not specified in several studies. Additionally, the other 'Risk of bias' domains (such as allocation concealment of the sequence randomisation, or blinding during either performance or outcome assessment) were also unreported.However, subgroup analyses as well as sensitivity analyses or funnel plots indicated that treatment outcomes were not influenced by the quality of the included studies. On the other hand, we rated 'length of STT' and AEs for the main outcome as high-quality according to GRADE classification; but we downgraded 'publication date' quality to moderate, and 'geographic region' and 'antibiotic resistance' to low- and very low-quality, respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicates that prior to 2008 SEQ was more effective than STT, especially when STT was given for only seven days. Nevertheless, the apparent advantage of sequential treatment has decreased over time, and more recent studies do not show SEQ to have a higher efficacy versus STT when STT is given for 10 days.Based on the results of this meta-analysis, although SEQ offers an advantage when compared with STT, it cannot be presented as a valid alternative, given that neither SEQ nor STT regimens achieved optimal efficacy ( ≥ 90% eradication rate).

Systematic review with meta-analysis: 10- or 14-day sequential therapy vs. 14-day triple therapy in the first line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Whether 10-day or 14-day sequential therapy is superior to 14-day triple therapy in the first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori remains controversial.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of 10-day or 14-day sequential therapy vs. 14-day triple therapy.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 10-day or 14-day sequential therapy and 14-day triple therapy as first-line treatment in adults were searched from the PubMed and Cochrane databases from 2000 to October 2015. Abstracts from international annual conferences were also searched. The primary and secondary outcomes were the eradication rate according to the intention-to-treat analysis and adverse effects, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 109 articles identified, 13 RCTs including 2749 patients in the sequential therapy group and 2424 patients in the 14-day triple therapy group were eligible. Overall, sequential therapy for 10 or 14 days was not significantly superior to 14-day triple therapy [Risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.08, P = 0.145]. However, there was significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 57.6%, P = 0.005). In the subgroup analysis of four trials, we found that 14-day sequential therapy was significantly more effective than 14-day triple therapy (RR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04-1.16, P = 0.002), and there was no significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%, P = 0.624) in this comparison. Sequential therapy given for 10 days was not superior to 14-day triple therapy (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98-1.09, P = 0.207). There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Sequential therapy given for 14 days, but not 10 days, was more effective than 14-day triple therapy as first-line treatment.

Levofloxacin for Helicobacter pylori infection: Drug resistance and safety

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is an important cause of chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer, closely correlates with mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), and is a risk factor for gastric cancer. The constantly increasing rate of resistance of H. pylori to antibiotics is the main reason for failure of H. pylori eradication therapy. How to increase the H. pylori eradication rate has become the focus of current research. Current concepts in treatment of H. pylori infection, including the Maastricht Ⅲ consensus report and Chinese consensus report in recent years, have recommended levofloxacin as a first-line or remedial therapy, and good therapeutic effects have been achieved; however, the wide use of levofloxacin has led to an increase in drug resistant strains of H. pylori. Investigation of the mechanism behind levofloxacin resistance and the security of levofloxacin has important significance to guide the clinical medication. This paper reviews the role and mechanisms of levofloxacin in H. pylori eradication, levofloxacin resistance and related molecular mechanisms, and safety of levofloxacin in the management of H. pylori infection.