Levofloxacin based sequential and triple therapy compared with standard plus probiotic combination for Helicobacter pylori eradication

Comparative effectiveness of different probiotics supplements for triple helicobacter pylori eradication: a network meta-analysis

Background

Probiotics has been reported as an effective supplement for Helicobacter pylori eradication. However, knowledge of their comparative efficacy is still lacking.

Aim

In this study, we used network meta-analysis of current probiotics supplement used in standard triple therapy to assess and rank their comparative effectiveness.

Methods

All randomized controlled trials from three main databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) up to April 2022 were collected and filtered to meet our criterion. We used Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the eligible randomized controlled trials and gave a rank for the efficiency and incidence of side effects of each probiotics supplement. The ranking probability for each therapy was assessed by means of surfaces under cumulative ranking values. Subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate other possible influencing factors.

Results

34 eligible randomized controlled trials entered the following meta-analysis, including 9,004 patients randomized to 10 kinds of therapies. Result showed that most probiotics added therapies had better outcomes than triple therapy, among which Bifidobacterium-Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium-Lactobacillus-Saccharomyces adjuvant therapy could obtain comprehensive benefit with high eradication rate (78.3% and 88.2% respectively), and cause few side effects. Combination of different probiotics, adding probiotics before or after triple therapy and longer duration of probiotics can improve therapeutic effect in H.pylori infected individuals.

Conclusion

For triple therapy of H.pylori infection, adding probiotics can increase eradication rate and bring protective effect. Considering the overall influence, Bifidobacterium-Lactobacillus or Bifidobacterium-Lactobacillus-Saccharomyces therapy can be a better choice in improving H.pylori eradication process.

Sitafloxacin for Third-Line Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Sitafloxacin-based therapy is a potent candidate for third-line Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment. In this systematic review, we summarise current reports with sitafloxacin-based therapy as a third-line treatment.

METHODS

Clinical studies were systematically searched using PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database. We combined data from clinical studies using a random-effects model and calculated pooled event rates, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the pooled odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

We included twelve clinical studies in the present systematic review. The mean eradication rate for 7-day regimens of either PPI (proton pump inhibitor) or vonoprazan-sitafloxacin-amoxicillin was 80.6% (95% CI, 75.2-85.0). The vonoprazan-sitafloxacin-amoxicillin regimen was significantly superior to the PPI-sitafloxacin-amoxicillin regimen (pooled OR of successful eradication: 6.00; 95% CI: 2.25-15.98, p < 0.001). The PPI-sitafloxacin-amoxicillin regimen was comparable with PPI-sitafloxacin-metronidazole regimens (pooled OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.55-2.07, p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the 7-day regimen composed of vonoprazan, sitafloxacin, and amoxicillin is a good option as the third-line Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment in Japan, the extension of treatment duration should be considered to further improve the eradication rate. Considering the safety concern of fluoroquinolones, sitafloxcin should be used after confirming drug susceptibility.

Efficacy and safety of probiotics in eradicating Helicobacter pylori: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to decreasing eradication rate and increasing side effects, probiotics have gradually become an important supplement to standard eradication regimens for Helicobacter pylori.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics in facilitating the eradication of H pylori and to explore the best timing and duration of probiotic supplementation, use of eradication regimens, strains, locations, and common side effects.

METHODS

Eligible studies were retrieved from the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI databases, and we applied the Stata 12.0 software for the standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Forty eligible studies with 8924 patients were included in the analysis. We used a random-effects model (I = 52.1% and I = 81.4%) to analyze the eradication rate and the incidence of total side effects by intention to treat (ITT). Compared with the control group, a higher eradication rate (relative risk [RR] 1.140, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.101-1.180, P < .001) and lower incidence of total side effects (RR 0.470, 95% CI 0.391-0.565, P < .001) were observed in the probiotic group. In the subgroup analysis, we evaluated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve scores for the before + same (75.2%), >2 weeks (92.6%), probiotic + quadruple regimen (99.9%), Lactobacillus (73.6%), multiple strains (72.1%), China (98.5%) groups. The rankings of common side effects are shown in Table 6. SUCRA scores for diarrhea (39.7%), abdominal pain (43.9%), nausea (78.8%), taste disturbance (99.6%), vomiting (7.1%), and constipation (30.9%) were reported. The consistency of all comparison groups was good.

CONCLUSIONS

Probiotics improved the eradication rate and reduced side effects when added to the treatments designed to eradicate H pylori. The use of probiotics before the eradication treatment and throughout the eradication treatment, and also the use of probiotics for more than 2 weeks, exerted better eradication effects. Probiotics combined with the bismuth quadruple regimen was the best combination. Lactobacillus and multiple strains were better choices of probiotic strains. The eradication effect observed in China was better than the effect observed in other countries.

Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics can disturb gastrointestinal microbiota which may lead to reduced resistance to pathogens such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Probiotics are live microbial preparations that, when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit to the host, and are a potential C. difficile prevention strategy. Recent clinical practice guidelines do not recommend probiotic prophylaxis, even though probiotics have the highest quality evidence among cited prophylactic therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for preventing C.difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 21 March 2017. Additionally, we conducted an extensive grey literature search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled (placebo, alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment control) trials investigating probiotics (any strain, any dose) for prevention of CDAD, or C. difficile infection were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (independently and in duplicate) extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was the incidence of CDAD. Secondary outcomes included detection of C. difficile infection in stool, adverse events, antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and length of hospital stay. Dichotomous outcomes (e.g. incidence of CDAD) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. Continuous outcomes (e.g. length of hospital stay) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of missing data on efficacy and safety outcomes. For the sensitivity analyses, we assumed that the event rate for those participants in the control group who had missing data was the same as the event rate for those participants in the control group who were successfully followed. For the probiotic group, we calculated effects using the following assumed ratios of event rates in those with missing data in comparison to those successfully followed: 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 5:1. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analyses were conducted on probiotic species, dose, adult versus pediatric population, and risk of bias as well as a post hoc subgroup analysis on baseline risk of CDAD (low 0% to 2%; moderate 3% to 5%; high > 5%). The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was independently assessed using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies (9955 participants) met the eligibility requirements for our review. Overall, 27 studies were rated as either high or unclear risk of bias. A complete case analysis (i.e. participants who completed the study) among trials investigating CDAD (31 trials, 8672 participants) suggests that probiotics reduce the risk of CDAD by 60%. The incidence of CDAD was 1.5% (70/4525) in the probiotic group compared to 4.0% (164/4147) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52; GRADE = moderate). Twenty-two of 31 trials had missing CDAD data ranging from 2% to 45%. Our complete case CDAD results proved robust to sensitivity analyses of plausible and worst-plausible assumptions regarding missing outcome data and results were similar whether considering subgroups of trials in adults versus children, inpatients versus outpatients, different probiotic species, lower versus higher doses of probiotics, or studies at high versus low risk of bias. However, in a post hoc analysis, we did observe a subgroup effect with respect to baseline risk of developing CDAD. Trials with a baseline CDAD risk of 0% to 2% and 3% to 5% did not show any difference in risk but trials enrolling participants with a baseline risk of > 5% for developing CDAD demonstrated a large 70% risk reduction (interaction P value = 0.01). Among studies with a baseline risk > 5%, the incidence of CDAD in the probiotic group was 3.1% (43/1370) compared to 11.6% (126/1084) in the control group (13 trials, 2454 participants; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.42; GRADE = moderate). With respect to detection of C. difficile in the stool pooled complete case results from 15 trials (1214 participants) did not show a reduction in infection rates. C. difficile infection was 15.5% (98/633) in the probiotics group compared to 17.0% (99/581) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10; GRADE = moderate). Adverse events were assessed in 32 studies (8305 participants) and our pooled complete case analysis indicates probiotics reduce the risk of adverse events by 17% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; GRADE = very low). In both treatment and control groups the most common adverse events included abdominal cramping, nausea, fever, soft stools, flatulence, and taste disturbance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials including 8672 patients, moderate certainty evidence suggests that probiotics are effective for preventing CDAD (NNTB = 42 patients, 95% CI 32 to 58). Our post hoc subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity indicated that probiotics are effective among trials with a CDAD baseline risk >5% (NNTB = 12; moderate certainty evidence), but not among trials with a baseline risk ≤5% (low to moderate certainty evidence). Although adverse effects were reported among 32 included trials, there were more adverse events among patients in the control groups. The short-term use of probiotics appears to be safe and effective when used along with antibiotics in patients who are not immunocompromised or severely debilitated. Despite the need for further research, hospitalized patients, particularly those at high risk of CDAD, should be informed of the potential benefits and harms of probiotics.

High antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori and its effect on tailored and empiric eradication of the organism in Lower Silesia, Poland

BACKGROUND

At present, the resistance to antibiotics is considered the most important reason for Helicobacter pylori (HP) eradication failure. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance of HP strains and to evaluate tailored and empiric therapeutic regimens in patients with peptic ulcer disease associated with infection of this microorganism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2011 and February 2013, 185 consecutive Polish patients with at least one positive Helicobacter pylori test (urease test, histopathologic examination, and/or culture) underwent eradication therapy. Those with positive culture were prescribed a tailored triple regimen, whereas those with no culture available received an empiric quadruple concomitant regimen or levofloxacin-containing triple therapy.

RESULTS

There were no HP strains resistant to amoxicillin; however, 56.7% were resistant to metronidazole, 55.2% to clarithromycin, and 5.9% to levofloxacin. Dual resistance was detected in 32.8% of individuals. Tailored and empiric therapies achieve cure rates, respectively, 95.5% and 86.6% by intention-to-treat and 95.5% and 91.3% by per-protocol analysis (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic resistance is notably high in Poland currently, but both tailored and empiric therapies can achieve acceptable cure rates equal to or higher than 90%.

Probiotics as an adjuvant treatment in Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy

Over 80% of individuals infected with Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) are asymptomatic. Increased resistance to antibiotics and decreased compliance to the therapeutic regimens have led to the failure of eradication therapy. Probiotics, with direct and indirect inhibitory effects on H. pylori in both animal models and clinical trials, have recently been used as a supplementary treatment in H. pylori eradication therapy. Probiotics have been considered useful because of the improvements in H. pylori eradication rates and therapy-related side effects although treatment outcomes using probiotics are controversial due to the heterogeneity of species, strains, doses and therapeutic duration of probiotics. Thus, despite the positive role of probiotics, several factors need to be further considered during their applications. Moreover, adverse events of probiotic use need to be noted. Further investigations into the safety of adjuvant probiotics to H. pylori eradication therapy are required.

Levofloxacin Sequential Therapy vs Levofloxacin Triple Therapy in the Second-Line Treatment of Helicobacter pylori: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy of levofloxacin triple therapy has fallen below 80% in the second-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). We aimed to assess whether the levofloxacin sequential therapy is more effective than levofloxacin triple therapy in the second-line treatment.

METHODS

This open-label, randomized, multicenter trial was conducted between 2012 and 2015. H. pylori-infected subjects who failed from clarithromycin-based regimens (N=600) were randomized (1:1) to receive levofloxacin sequential therapy (LS: lansoprazole and amoxicillin for the first 5 days, followed by lansoprazole, levofloxacin, and metronidazole for another 5 days) or levofloxacin triple therapy (LT: lansoprazole, amoxicillin, and levofloxacin for 10 days). Successful eradication was defined as negative (13)C-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 prevalence of clarithromycin, levofloxacin, and metronidazole resistance was 60, 17.6, and 36.9%, respectively. The eradication rates of LS and LT were 84.3% (253/300) and 75.3% (226/300), respectively, in the ITT analysis (P=0.006) and 86.3% (253/293) and 78.8% (223/283), respectively, in the PP analysis (P=0.021). The efficacies of both LS and LT were affected by levofloxacin resistance. The secondary resistance of levofloxacin was 66.7 and 73.9% after LS and LT, respectively. The efficacies of LS and LT were not affected by the CYP2C19 polymorphism.

CONCLUSIONS

Levofloxacin sequential therapy was more effective than levofloxacin triple therapy, and it is recommended in the second-line treatment for H. pylori (

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01537055).

Quinolone-based first, second and third-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a very common bacterium that infects about 50% of the world population in urban areas and over 90% of people living in rural and developing countries. Fluoroquinolones, a class of antimicrobials, have been extensively used in eradication regimens for H. pylori. Levofloxacin is the most commonly used, and in second-line regimens, is one of the most effective options. However, an increasing resistance rate of H. pylori to fluoroquinolones is being observed, that will likely affect their effectiveness in the near future. Other novel fluoroquinolone molecules, such as moxifloxacin, sitafloxacin, gatifloxacin and gemifloxacin, have been proposed and showed encouraging results in vitro, although data on their clinical use are still limited. Further studies in large sample trials are needed to confirm their safety and efficacy profile in clinical practice.

Fluoroquinolone Sequential Therapy for Helicobacter pylori: A Meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

As resistance of Helicobacter pylori to standard first-line therapy is increasing globally, alternative treatment regimens, such as a fluoroquinolone-based sequential regimen, have been explored. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of fluoroquinolone-based sequential therapy with standard first-line treatment for H. pylori infection.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials.

PATIENTS

A total of 738 H. pylori-infected, treatment-naive adults who received fluoroquinolone-based sequential therapy (5-7 days of a proton pump inhibitor [PPI] and amoxicillin therapy followed by 5-7 days of a PPI, a fluoroquinolone, and metronidazole or tinidazole or furazolidone therapy) and 733 H. pylori-infected, treatment-naive adults who received guideline-recommended, first-line therapy with standard triple therapy (7-14 days of a PPI plus amoxicillin and clarithromycin) or standard sequential therapy (5 days of a PPI plus amoxicillin, followed by an additional 5 days of triple therapy consisting of a PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole or tinidazole).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases (from inception through January 2015) was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that compared fluoroquinolone-based sequential therapy with guideline-recommended, first-line treatment regimens in H. pylori-infected, treatment-naive adults. All selected trials confirmed H. pylori infection prior to treatment as well as post-treatment eradication. A meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.2. Treatment effect was determined with a random-effects model by using the Mantel-Haenszel method and was reported as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the six randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria, 648 (87.8%) of 738 patients receiving fluoroquinolone-based sequential therapy and 521 (71.1%) of 733 patients receiving standard regimens achieved eradication (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.35). The frequencies of adverse effects that were reported in three of the trials were comparable for all treatments (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.29). In addition, no statistically significant difference was noted in the number of patients who experienced adverse effects that prompted discontinuation of therapy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.34-3.09). The H. pylori eradication rate appeared similar among the six trials with respect to duration of therapy and daily dose of the fluoroquinolone.

CONCLUSION

Fluoroquinolone-based sequential therapy is a reasonable treatment alternative to first-line eradication therapy for treatment of H. pylori.

Meta-analysis of single strain probiotics for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori and prevention of adverse events

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of single strain probiotics for the: (1) eradication of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori); (2) prevention of adverse events; and (3) prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea associated with eradication therapy.

METHODS: We searched PubMed (1960-2014), EMBASE (1974-2014), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1990-2014), and ISI Web of Science (2000-2014). Additionally, we conducted a grey literature search including contact with National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry, abstracts from annual infectious disease and gastroenterology meetings, experts in the field and correspondence with authors. Randomized controlled trials of H. pylori positive adults or children treated with eradication therapy and assessing the adjunctive therapy with a single strain of probiotics were included. The primary outcomes were the rates of eradication of H. pylori and frequency of patients with adverse events or antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Outcomes were pooled using fixed or random-effects models to calculate the relative risk and corresponding 95%CI and weighted on study size. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analyses were conducted on daily probiotic dose, study population, and quality of the study. The overall quality of the evidence for each probiotic strain was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 25 randomized controlled trials (28 treatment arms, with a total of 3769 participants) assessed one of six single probiotic strains as adjunctive treatments to standard eradication therapy. Only one probiotic strain significantly improved H. pylori eradication rates: Saccharomyces boulardii (S. boulardii) CNCM I-745 [pooled relative risks (pRR) = 1.11, 95%CI: 1.07-1.16]. Only one probiotic strain (S. boulardii CNCM I-745) significantly prevented any adverse events (pRR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.28-0.62). Both S. boulardii CNCM I-745 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG significantly reduced antibiotic-associated diarrhea (pRR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.37-0.60 and pRR = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.17-0.48, respectively) associated with H. pylori eradication therapy. Meta-regression of sub-groups did not detect significant differences by dose, adult vs pediatric, symptom status, or study quality, but did find significant differences by the strain of probiotic. Potential mild publication bias was found for antibiotic-associated diarrhea, but not for eradication or adverse event outcomes. Analysis of the study quality illuminated areas for improvement in future studies (use of placebos, study size calculations, attrition reasons and discussion of limitations and generalizability).

CONCLUSION: The pooled evidence suggests that the adjunctive use of a few probiotic strains may improve H. pylori eradication rates and prevent the development of adverse events and antibiotic-associated diarrhea in those treated with standard eradication therapies. The type of probiotic strain was the most important factor in predicting efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of probiotics as adjuvant agents for Helicobacter pylori infection: A meta-analysis

The aim of the present study was to determine whether probiotics could help to improve the eradication rates and reduce the side effects associated with anti-Helicobacter pylori treatment, and to investigate the optimal time and duration of probiotic administration during the treatment, thus providing clinical practice guidelines for eradication success worldwide. By searching Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index, all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotics as adjuvant agents of anti-H. pylori standard triple-therapy regimens with placebo or no treatment were selected. Statistical analysis was performed with the Comprehensive Meta Analysis Software. Subgroup, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were also carried out. Twenty-one RCTs involving a total of 3,814 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled eradication rates of the probiotic group were 80.3% (1,709/2,128) by intention-to-treat (ITT) and 83.8% (1,709/2,039) by pro-protocol analyses; the pooled relative risk (RR) by ITT for probiotic supplementation versus treatment without probiotics was 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-1.19]. A reduced risk of overall H. pylori therapy-related adverse effects was also found with probiotic supplementation (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40-0.91). The subgroup analyses showed that probiotic supplementation prior and subsequent to the treatment regimen both improved eradication rates for H. pylori infection. Furthermore, probiotic treatment lasting >2 weeks and including Lactobacillus or multiple probiotic strains significantly enhanced the efficacy. In conclusion, supplementation with probiotics for H. pylori eradication may be effective in increasing eradication rates and decreasing therapy-related side effects. Probiotic administration prior or subsequent to therapy and for a duration of >2 weeks may increase the eradication efficacy.

The effect of probiotics supplementation on Helicobacter pylori eradication rates and side effects during eradication therapy: a meta-analysis

Background

Previous meta-analyses reported that probiotics improve the effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication during antibiotic therapy, while results regarding a possible reduction of side effects remained inconclusive. Moreover, the effectiveness of different strains of probiotics has not been studied so far. It is further conceivable that probiotics will produce additional effects only if antibiotics are relatively ineffective.

Methods

This meta-analysis includes eligible randomized controlled trials examining effects of probiotics supplementation on eradication rates (ER) and side effects, published up to May 2014. Sub-group analysis was performed to compare different probiotic strains and antibiotic therapies with different effectiveness in controls (ER <80% vs.>80%). Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Harbord's test. The quality of the trials was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Results

Thirty-three RCTs involving a total of 4459 patients met the inclusion criteria in case of eradication rates of which 20 assessed total side effects in addition. Overall, the pooled eradication rate in probiotics supplementation groups was significantly higher than in controls (ITT analysis: RR 1.122, 95% CI 1.086–1.159, PP analysis: RR 1.114, 95% CI 1.070–1.159). Sub group-analysis could, however, confirm this finding only for four individual strains (Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei DN-114001, Lactobacillus gasseri, and Bifidobacterium infantis 2036) and for relatively ineffective antibiotic therapies. There was a significant difference between groups in the overall incidence of side effects (RR 0.735, 95% CI 0.598–0.902). This result was, however, only confirmed for non-blinded trials.

Conclusions

The pooled data suggest that supplementation with specific strains of probiotics compared with eradication therapy may be considered an option for increasing eradication rates, particularly when antibiotic therapies are relatively ineffective. The impact on side effects remains unclear and more high quality trials on specific probiotic strains and side effects are thus needed.

Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 in different clinical conditions

INTRODUCTION

Saccharomyces boulardii is a well-known probiotic worldwide, and there are numerous studies including experimental and clinical trials in children and adults by the use of S. boulardii.

AREAS COVERED

The objective of the present report is to provide an update on the evidence for the efficacy of S. boulardii CNCM I-745 in different clinical conditions. Saccharomyces boulardii is one of the best-studied probiotics in acute gastroenteritis (AGE) and is shown to be safe and to reduce the duration of diarrhea and hospitalization by about 1 day. Saccharomyces boulardii is one of the recommended probiotics for AGE in children by European Society of Paediatric Infectious Diseases and European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN). Saccharomyces boulardii is also a recommended probiotic for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and a recent study showed promising results for the treatment of AAD in children. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the long-term use of S. boulardii in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Although some clinical studies showed positive effects of S. boulardii on inflammation, there is no clinical evidence that S. boulardii is useful in inflammatory bowel disease. Saccharomyces boulardii could be used in patients needing Helicobacter pylori eradication because the S. boulardii improves compliance, decreases the side effects and moderately increases the eradication rate. There are new promising results (improving feeding tolerance, shorten the course of hyperbilirubinemia), but we do still not recommend the routine use of S. boulardii in newborns.

EXPERT OPINION

Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 is a good example for the statement that each probiotic needs to be taxonomically characterized and its efficacy and safety should be documented individually in different clinical settings.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection: Which regimen first?

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a well-known human pathogen that plays an essential role in the pathogenesis of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, and gastric malignancies. Although H. pylori is susceptible to several antimicrobials, this infection has proven challenging to cure because of the increasing prevalence of bacterial strains that are resistant to the most commonly used antimicrobials, particularly clarithromycin. An effective (i.e., > 90%) first-line therapy is mandatory for avoiding supplementary treatments and testing, and more importantly for preventing the development of secondary resistance. This study reviews the recent literature on first-line therapies for H. pylori. The eradication rates following standard triple therapy (a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin and clarithromycin) for H. pylori infection are declining worldwide. Several first-line strategies have been proposed to increase the eradication rate, including extending the treatment duration to 14 d, the use of a four-drug regimen (bismuth-containing quadruple, sequential, and concomitant treatments), and the use of novel antibiotics, such as fluoroquinolones. However, the efficacy of these regimens is controversial. A first-line eradication regimen should be based on what works best in a defined geographical area and must take into account the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in that region.

Sequential therapy versus standard triple-drug therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a systematic review of recent evidence

BACKGROUND

Several alternative treatment regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication have been proposed since the efficacy of standard triple therapy has declined over time, and sequential therapy is one of them. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze and compare the efficacy, adverse effects and cost of sequential therapy with that of standard triple therapy for H. pylori infection.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases were used to retrieve all relevant articles published in the English language over the last 5 years (January 2008-October 2012). Eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sequential and standard triple therapies in patients with documented H. pylori infection. Eligibility and quality of the trials were assessed independently by two reviewers, and the data regarding eradication rate, adverse effects and the cost of therapy were extracted.

RESULTS

Of the 17 RCTs included in the analysis (Asia 13, Europe 3, Latin America, 1), 12 reported better eradication rates with the sequential therapy, four did not find a significant difference between the two treatment regimens, and one reported a better eradication rate with standard triple therapy. All except one RCT reported no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects between standard triple therapy and sequential therapy. Sequential therapy was cheaper than standard triple therapy in all three RCTs where a cost analysis was performed. The limitations of the RCTs included in the systematic review were that the sequential therapy regimen and the duration of standard triple therapy were not uniform. Antibiotic susceptibility tests were performed in only three RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of the RCTs have shown superior eradication rates with sequential therapy, the largest RCT from Latin America did not find a significant difference between the two treatment regimens. Sequential therapy has good efficacy; however, further trials other than those from Asia and Italy are required to assess its superiority over existing regimens before recommending sequential therapy as the first line of treatment for H. pylori infection.

Efficacy of two levofloxacin-containing second-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

An ideal second-line therapeutic regimen for the treatment of patients who do not respond to standard triple therapy is currently being investigated. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of two levofloxacin-containing second-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty eight consecutive H. pylori -positive patients who did not respond to the standard triple therapy (77 female, 71 male) were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomized consecutively to two-second-line therapy groups; 73 to the levofloxacin-containing sequential (LCS) and 75 to the levofloxacin-containing quadruple (LCQ) therapy group. The LCS therapy group received pantoprazole 40 mg and amoxicillin 1,000 mg twice daily for 5 days followed by pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily and metronidazole 500 mg three times daily and levofloxacin 500 mg one time daily for 7 days. The LCQ therapy group received pantoprazole 40 mg twice daily, tetracycline 500 mg four times daily, bismuth subcitrate 300 mg four times daily and levofloxacin 500 mg one time daily for 10 days. H. pylori eradication was confirmed by stool antigen testing at least 6 weeks after cessation of therapy. Side-effects and compliance were assessed by a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat cure rates were: 82.2% (95%CI; 73-91) and 90.6% (95%CI; 79-95) in the LCS and LCQ therapy, respectively. Per protocol cure rates were: 85.7% (95%CI; 75-92) and 93.1% (95%CI; 85-98) in the LCS and LCQ therapy, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between two groups (p = .1). No differences in compliance or adverse effects were demonstrated between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective trial demonstrates that both levofloxacin-containing sequential therapy and levofloxacin-containing quadruple therapy regimens have higher H. pylori eradication rates and are well tolerated. The levofloxacin-containing quadruple therapy is likely the best treatment option for a second-line therapy, at least in the Turkish population.

Standard triple and sequential therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication: an update

H. pylori infection remains a worldwide spread disease with a definite morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, no current therapy regimen is able to cure the infection in all treated patients. The efficacy of the widely recommended triple therapies is decreasing, and a novel 10-day sequential therapy has been proposed. Data of 3 previous meta-analyses showed a significantly higher eradication rate following the sequential as compared to the 7-10 days triple therapies. The sequential therapy achieved significantly better results than triple therapies in children, elderly patients, non-ulcer dyspepsia patients, and in those infected with resistant strains towards either clarithromycin or metronidazole. We identified further 10 randomized trials. By pooling data, H. pylori infection was cured in 2,454 (86%; 95% CI: 84.7-87.3) out of 2,853 patients with the sequential therapy and in 2,320 (75.3%; 95% CI: 73.8-76.9) out of 3,079 patients treated with standard triple therapies (p<0.001), corresponding to a number to treat (NNT) of 9. The comparison between the 10-day sequential regimen and 14-day triple therapies deserves further investigations.

Levofloxacin-containing triple and sequential therapy or standard sequential therapy as the first line treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication in China

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and the adverse effects of levofloxacin-containing triple therapy, standard sequential therapy, and levofloxacin-containing sequential therapy as first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication.

METHODS

Three hundred and forty-five naive H. pylori-positive patients were randomized to receive levofloxacin-containing 7-day triple therapy (Levo triple, i.e., esomeprazole, 20 mg, twice daily, amoxicillin, 1 g, twice daily, and levofloxacin, 500 mg, once daily for 7 days, n = 114), standard sequential therapy (SST-10, 5-day esomeprazole, 20 mg, twice daily and amoxicillin, 1 g, twice daily followed by 5-day esomeprazole, 20 mg, twice daily, clarithromycin, 500 mg, twice daily and tinidazole, 500 mg, twice daily for 5 days, n = 115) or levofloxacin-containing sequential therapy (Levo-ST-10, 5-day esomeprazole, 20 mg, twice daily and amoxicillin, 1 g, twice daily for 5 days followed by 5-day esomeprazole, 20 mg, twice daily, levofloxacin, 500 mg, once daily and tinidazole, 500 mg, twice daily, n = 116). Eradication was confirmed by a (13) C-urea breath test 4 weeks after completion of treatment.

RESULTS

Intention to treat (ITT) eradication rates were 78.1% (95% CI: 69.4, 85.3%), 78.3% (95% CI: 69.6, 85.4%), and 82.8% (95% CI: 74.6, 89.1%) for Levo triple, SST-10, Levo-ST-10, respectively (p = .599). Per protocol (PP) eradication rates were 80.9% (95% CI: 72.3, 87.8%), 82.6% (95% CI: 74.1, 89.2%), and 86.5% (95% CI: 78.7, 92.2%), respectively, for the three therapies (p = .513). Overall, 3.8% experienced mild to moderate adverse events; the rates were 1.75, 4.35, and 5.17%, respectively, in the three groups (p = .325).

CONCLUSIONS

Standard sequential therapy and 7-day levofloxacin triple therapy produced unacceptably therapeutic efficacy in China. Only levofloxacin-containing sequential therapy achieved borderline acceptable result. None of the regimens tested reliably achieved 90% or greater therapeutic efficacy in China.

Evaluation of Helicobacter Pylori eradication in pediatric patients by triple therapy plus lactoferrin and probiotics compared to triple therapy alone

Background

To evaluate whether the addition of a probiotic could improve Helicobacter pylori (H.P.) eradication rates and reduce the side effects of treatment in children.

Methods

Between July 2008 and July 2011 all patients with a clinical, laboratory and endoscopic diagnosis of H.P. positive gastritis referred to our Unit were included in the study. Patients suffering from allergy to any of drugs used in the study, with previous attempts to eradicate H.P. and those who received antibiotics, PPIs or probiotics within 4 weeks were excluded from the present study. Patients were randomized into two therapy regimens (group A and B): both groups received standard triple treatment (omeprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin) while only group B patients were also given a probiotic (Probinul - Cadigroup). Patients compliance was evaluated at the end of the treatment. Successful eradication was defined as a negative 13 C-urea breath test (C13-ubt) result four weeks after therapy discontinuation.

Results

A total of 68 histopathologically proven H.P.-infection children (32 male and 36 females) were included in the study. All of the patients in both groups used more than 90% of the therapies and no patients were lost at follow up. All side effects were selflimiting and disappeared once the therapy was terminated. Epigastric pain was observed in 6 (17.6%) group A vs 2 (5.8%) group B patients (P<0.05), nausea in 3 (8.8%) group A vs 1 (2.9%) group B patients (P<0.05); vomiting and diarrhea were observed in 2(5.8%) and 8 (23.5%) group A patients, respectively and never in group B (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of constipation (5.8% in group A and B). Four weeks after the completion of therapy, 56/68 patients (82.3%) tested negative for H.P. on C13-ubt. H.P. was eradicated in 26 patients (76.4%) in group A and in 30 patients (88.2%) in group B. There was no significantly difference in the rate of H.P. eradication between group A and group B (p=0.1), although the success rate for H.P. eradication was higher in group B than in group A.

Conclusion

The addition of a probiotic formula to triple therapy significantly decreased the frequency of epigastric pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

The Optimal First-Line Therapy of Helicobacter pylori Infection in Year 2012

This paper reviews the literature about first-line therapies for H. pylori infection in recent years. First-line therapies are facing a challenge because of increasing treatment failure due to elevated antibiotics resistance. Several new treatment strategies that recently emerged to overcome antibiotic resistance have been surveyed. Alternative first-line therapies include bismuth-containing quadruple therapy, sequential therapy, concomitant therapy, and hybrid therapy. Levofloxacin-based therapy shows impressive efficacy but might be employed as rescue treatment due to rapidly raising resistance. Rifabutin-based therapy is also regarded as a rescue therapy. Several factors including antibiotics resistance, patient compliance, and CYP 2C19 genotypes could influence the outcome. Clinicians should use antibiotics according to local reports. It is recommended that triple therapy should not be used in areas with high clarithromycin resistance or dual clarithromycin and metronidazole resistance.