Efficacy and Tolerability of Three Regimens for Helicobacter pylori Eradication

Bismuth supplements as the first-line regimen for Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy: Systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

An increase in the use of antibiotics leads to increased antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori (H pylori). Consequently, it has been considered that the first-line standard regimen should be changed. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of nonantibiotic (bismuth) supplements as a first-line regimen for H pylori eradication.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English and undertaken up until August 2018. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing bismuth supplements with non-bismuth-containing regimens in H pylori eradication was performed. RCTs of classic bismuth-containing quadruple therapy as a first-line regimen were excluded.

RESULTS

We identified twenty-five randomized trials (3990 patients), and the total H pylori eradication rate, according to per protocol analyzed, was 85.8%. The odds ratio was 1.83 (95% confidence interval (CI). 1.57-2.13). Among these RCTs, there were 7 RCTs for bismuth add-on therapy, and the odds ratio was 2.81 (95% CI. 2.03-3.89). When the studies were performed in a high clarithromycin resistance area (≥15%) or included patients with clarithromycin resistance, bismuth-containing regimens were superior to non-bismuth regimens. Moreover, the incidence of total side effects was insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Bismuth supplements as a first-line regimen could be effective, with bismuth add-on regimens being the most effective. Particularly, bismuth supplements showed the potential efficacy for clarithromycin-resistant strains and would be the most viable alternative in clinical practice.

Adverse events with bismuth salts for Helicobacter pylori eradication: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the safety of bismuth used in Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) eradication therapy regimens.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (up to October 2007) to identify randomised controlled trials comparing bismuth with placebo or no treatment, or bismuth salts in combination with antibiotics as part of eradication therapy with the same dose and duration of antibiotics alone or, in combination, with acid suppression. Total numbers of adverse events were recorded. Data were pooled and expressed as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS: We identified 35 randomised controlled trials containing 4763 patients. There were no serious adverse events occurring with bismuth therapy. There was no statistically significant difference detected in total adverse events with bismuth [relative risk (RR) = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.87-1.16], specific individual adverse events, with the exception of dark stools (RR = 5.06; 95% CI: 1.59-16.12), or adverse events leading to withdrawal of therapy (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.54-1.37).

CONCLUSION: Bismuth for the treatment of H pylori is safe and well-tolerated. The only adverse event occurring significantly more commonly was dark stools.

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.

Survey of the opinions, knowledge and practices of surgeons and internists regarding Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat policy

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori infection is highly prevalent and may cause disease in 10% to 15% of infected individuals: duodenal and gastric ulcer, gastric cancer and gastric lymphoma. Guidelines for a test-and-treat policy have been published by the European H. pylori working group in Maastricht.

GOALS

To assess the current approach to H. pylori-related diseases, indications for testing and eradication therapy, among internists and surgeons of a University affiliated medical center.

STUDY

A 15-items questionnaire was formulated according to the Maastricht II test-and-treat recommendation and distributed among the physicians of 6 internal medicine departments and the department of surgery. The questionnaires were completed anonymously at the department's staff meeting, under the supervision of the head of the department. All questions required a yes/no answer; the maximum possible score was 15. The relative ratio (RR) of correct answers was calculated for every question and by subgroups as follows: all participants, internists, surgeons, experts and residents in internal medicine and surgery.

RESULTS

The response rate was 68% (55 out of 80 physicians). Total score for all participants was 10.9 (RR = 0.73), significantly lower than the maximum score of 15 (RR = 1.00). The internists had significantly higher average score than the surgeons for 2 questions: causative agent in gastric cancer (p = 0.003) or gastric lymphoma (p = 0.003), 1 question about triple therapy, PPI, penicillin and azythromycin being not recommended (p = 0.022), and for 1 question of test-and-treat policy: should this strategy apply to family members of gastric cancer patients (p = 0.045). Only 56% of the internists and 21% of surgeons knew what MALToma is, and the correlation with H. pylori infection.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of Surgeons and Internists regarding infection and correlation with diseases or test and treat policy should be improved.