Does eradication of Helicobacter pylori impair healing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug associated bleeding peptic ulcers? A prospective randomized study

Peptic Ulcer Bleeding Risk. The Role of Helicobacter Pylori Infection in NSAID/Low-Dose Aspirin Users

OBJECTIVES

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection and NSAID/low-dose aspirin (ASA) use are associated with peptic ulcer disease. The risk of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) associated with the interaction of these factors remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the risk of PUB associated with the interaction between H. pylori infection and current nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or low-dose ASA use.

METHODS

This was a case-control study of consecutive patients hospitalized because of PUB. Controls were matched by age, sex, and month of admission. H. pylori infection status was determined in all cases and controls by serology. Drug use was determined by structured questionnaire. Adjusted relative risk (RR) associated with different factors, and the interaction between NSAID/ASA and H. pylori infection was estimated by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The study included 666 cases of PUB and 666 controls; 74.3% cases and 54.8% controls (RR: 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-3.3) tested positive for H. pylori infection; 34.5% of cases had current NSAID use compared with 13.4% of controls (RR: 4.0; 95% CI: 3.0-5.4). Respective proportions for low-dose ASA use were 15.8 and 12%, respectively (RR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.3-2.7). The RR of PUB for concomitant NSAID use and H. pylori infection suggested an additive effect (RR: 8.0; 95% CI: 5.0-12.8), whereas no interaction was observed with ASA use (RR: 3.5; 95% CI: 2.0-6.1).

CONCLUSIONS

NSAID, low-dose ASA use, and H. pylori infection are three independent risk factors for the development of PUB, but there were differences in the interaction effect between low-dose ASA (no interaction) or NSAID (addition) use and H. pylori infection, which may have implications for clinical practice in prevention strategies.

Prophylactic use of aspirin: systematic review of harms and approaches to mitigation in the general population

A careful assessment of benefits and harms is required to assess suitability of aspirin as a prophylactic public health measure. However, comprehensive population-level data on harms are lacking. We collected and synthesized age and sex-specific data on harms relevant to aspirin use in average-risk individuals aged 50 years or older. We conducted systematic literature searches to identify baseline rates of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, peptic ulcer, major extra-cranial bleeding, and case-fatality rates due to GI bleeding or peptic ulcer in general population. The magnitude of aspirin-associated increase, the prevalence and attributable risk of Helicobacter pylori infection on these events in aspirin users was also assessed. Baseline rates of major extracranial bleeding events and GI complications increase with age; an almost threefold to fourfold increase is observed from age 50-54 to 70-74 years. Low or standard-dose aspirin use increases GI bleeding events by 60% leading to an annual excess of 0.45 and 0.79 GI bleeding events per 1,000 women and men aged 50-54 years respectively. 5-10% of major GI complications are fatal; a clear age dependence--higher fatality in older individuals, is seen. Eradication of H. pylori infection before aspirin use could reduce the incidence of upper GI complications by 25-30%. GI complications are increased by about 60% due to aspirin use but are fatal only in a very small proportion of individuals younger than 70 years of age. Major bleeding events that are comparable in severity to cancer or CVD, are infrequent. Screening and eradication of H. pylori infection could substantially lower aspirin-related GI harms.

Interaction of Helicobacter pylori infection and low-dose aspirin in the upper gastrointestinal tract: implications for clinical practice

Low-dose aspirin has been shown to increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal tract injury. Risk factors in upper gastrointestinal complications in low-dose aspirin users are less well defined than in other NSAID users, and there are enough intrinsic differences in the two agents to discuss them separately. In particularly, the role of Helicobacter pylori and the benefit of its eradication in decreasing the risk of upper gastrointestinal tract injury in low-dose ASA users remains controversial. Various consensus groups have recommended H. pylori testing and eradication in low-dose ASA users with a prior history of peptic ulcer or ulcer bleeding. The basis of this recommendation is derived from a limited, albeit expanding evidence on the role of H. pylori in upper gastrointestinal tract injury in low-dose ASA users and on the effectiveness of H. pylori eradication in reducing the risk of complications such as rebleeding in high-risk patients.

Role of Helicobacter pylori infection in gastroduodenal damage in patients starting NSAID therapy: 4 Months follow-up study

AIMS

We aimed to determine differences in gastroduodenal damage related to the presence of Helicobacter pylori (Hp) in patients starting long-term NSAID therapy. Seventy-one candidates for chronic NSAIDs therapy (33 Hp negative and 38 Hp positive) entered the study and underwent upper GI endoscopy before, and 8 and 16 weeks after, continuous NSAID therapy.

RESULTS

Lanza score increased in both Hp positive and negative patients in the course of NSAID therapy (P < 0.001), being significantly higher in Hp positive than Hp negative (4.31 ± 1.33 vs 3.15 ± 1.95, P < 0.05) after 16 weeks of follow-up. In gastric mucosa, no significant difference in mean Lanza score was observed between the two groups. Duodenal ulcer was diagnosed in 18 (36.8%) Hp positive and 1 (3%) Hp negative patient (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Hp is more closely related to duodenal than gastric mucosal injury in NSAID users. Risk for duodenal ulcer in Hp-infected individual increases after 4 months of NSAID therapy.

Interaction of Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in gastric and duodenal ulcers

BACKGROUND

Gastric (GU) and duodenal ulcers (DU) are in most instances either induced by Helicobacter pylori infection or by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Whether eradication of H. pylori is beneficial in NSAID users for preventing NSAID induced GU and DU has been the focus of different studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mechanisms shared by both H. pylori and NSAIDs for the induction of GU and DU were reviewed and randomized controlled trials on H. pylori eradication for prevention and healing of GU and DU in patients requiring NSAID therapy were identified by a PubMed search.

RESULTS

Key factors in the induction of GU and DU for both H. pylori and NSAIDs are a decrease in pH, imbalance between apoptosis and proliferation, reduction in mucosal blood flow, and recruitment of polymorphonucleates in distinct compartments. For primary ulcer prevention, H. pylori eradication before starting an NSAID therapy reduces the risk of NSAID induced GU and virtually abolishes the risk of DU. H. pylori eradication alone is not sufficient for secondary prevention of NSAID induced GU and DU. H. pylori infection appears to further increase the protective effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) to reduce the risk of ulcer relapse. H. pylori eradication does not influence the healing of both GU and DU if NSAID intake is discontinued.

CONCLUSIONS

Duodenal ulcer is more closely related to H. pylori infection than GU in NSAID users. H. pylori eradication is recommended for primary prevention of GU and DU in patients requiring NSAID therapy. PPI therapy is mandatory for secondary prevention of gastroduodenal ulcers, and appears to further reduce the risk of ulcer relapse in the presence of H. pylori.

Peptic ulcer disease

Peptic ulcer disease had a tremendous effect on morbidity and mortality until the last decades of the 20th century, when epidemiological trends started to point to an impressive fall in its incidence. Two important developments are associated with the decrease in rates of peptic ulcer disease: the discovery of effective and potent acid suppressants, and of Helicobacter pylori. With the discovery of H pylori infection, the causes, pathogenesis, and treatment of peptic ulcer disease have been rewritten. We focus on this revolution of understanding and management of peptic ulcer disease over the past 25 years. Despite substantial advances, this disease remains an important clinical problem, largely because of the increasingly widespread use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and low-dose aspirin. We discuss the role of these agents in the causes of ulcer disease and therapeutic and preventive strategies for drug-induced ulcers. The rare but increasingly problematic H pylori-negative NSAID-negative ulcer is also examined.

Helicobacter pylori and NSAID-induced gastric ulcer in a Japanese population

A recent meta-analysis by Huang et al. clarified that Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are important factors for peptic ulcer. The results showed that the risk for ulcer in NSAID(+)/H. pylori(+) patients was 61.1 fold higher when compared with NSAID(-)/H. pylori(-) patients. Some gastric ulcers detected in patients on NSAID therapy may actually be caused by H. pylori, but it is difficult to differentiate NSAID-induced gastric ulcer from H. pylori-induced gastric ulcer. Several studies have investigated the effects of H. pylori eradication on ulcer healing. One study reported that H. pylori eradication actually lowered the healing rate of gastric ulcers. Because there have been no studies finding that H. pylori eradication facilitates healing, H. pylori eradication is not recommended for NSAID users. Concerning the efficacy of H. pylori eradication in the prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcer, a meta-analysis concluded that among all patients on NSAID therapy, H. pylori eradication lowered the prevalence of ulcer, which was particularly marked in NSAID-naïve patients. When compared with those of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), the preventative effects of H. pylori eradication were inferior. In Japan, national health insurance does not cover procedures that prevent or lower the risk for NSAID-induced ulcer. When administering NSAID to patients with risk factors, it is desirable to administer antiulcer agents.

Identification of Helicobacter pylori infected patients, using administrative data

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori is a prevalent organism implicated in peptic ulcer disease.

AIM

To validate administrative data for diagnosis of H. pylori-infected patients.

METHODS

Administrative data identified patients with ICD-9 code for H. pylori (041.86) or prescription of eradication therapy; diagnosis was confirmed by chart abstraction. Multivariable regression assessed predictors of infection considering drug therapy, ICD-9 code 041.86, procedure code, in-patient or out-patient diagnostic code, age, gender and race to generate an algorithm for validation.

RESULTS

The test cohort of 531 patients (361 potential cases; 170 random controls) was primarily male (94%), Caucasian (59%) and elderly [67 years (s.d. 10)]. The positive predictive value (PPV) of ICD-9 code 041.86 was 100% and 97.4% if from an in-patient or out-patient encounter, respectively. Eradication drug therapy had a PPV of 73.7% (triple therapy) and 97.7% (quadruple therapy). The strongest predictors were out-patient ICD-9 code 041.86 (OR 8.1; 95% CI: 7.0-9.1); eradication drug therapy (OR 7.4; 95% CI: 6.6-8.3); oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OR 3.5; 95% CI: 3.3-3.6); and age > or =70 (OR 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1-1.4). An algorithm including these data elements yielded a c-statistic of 0.93 and PPV of 97.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Administrative data can diagnose H. pylori-infected patients. The diagnostic algorithm includes presence of eradication drug therapy overlapping with an out-patient ICD-9 code 041.86 among elderly adults.

Gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely prescribed but can have serious gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular side effects, which have led to the withdrawal of some of these drugs and continuing uncertainty about the best approach to patients requiring NSAID therapy, particularly in those with GI or cardiovascular risk factors. To define the risks to the GI and cardiovascular systems associated with NSAID therapy, we have undertaken a series of systematic reviews of original articles published between January 1995 and December 2006. In this article we describe the mechanisms and patterns of GI and cardiovascular side effects in NSAID-taking patients and identify a range of drug and patient factors that contribute to an increased risk of adverse events. We conclude that NSAID therapy should not be started unless it is essential, and that Helicobacter pylori eradication should be considered in patients at increased GI risk. We discuss the use of gastroprotective agents and provide practical advice to help physicians assess and balance both cardiovascular and GI risks and benefits in their prescribing decisions.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use does not affect short-term endoscopic and histologic outcomes after Helicobacter pylori eradication in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

We evaluated the effects of the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on endoscopic and histological findings in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) before and after the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication using lansoprazole 30 mg, amoxicillin 750 mg, and clarithromycin 200 mg twice daily for 1 week was conducted in 44 patients (mean age: 56.5 years) with RA. Using the updated Sydney system, endoscopic and histological findings of the greater curvature of the antrum, the greater curvature of the upper corpus, and the lesser curvature of the lower corpus were compared before and after eradication, for a mean follow-up period of 3.5 months. Overall, H. pylori eradication was successful in 32 patients (72.7%). Of these 32 patients, 23 were NSAID users. In the successful eradication group, (1) there was no significant change on endoscopic findings, including gastric erythema and erosion in all three regions irrespective of NSAIDs use; (2) of 17 active ulcers before eradication in NSAIDs users, all healed except for one duodenal ulcer that persisted, where one patient newly developed a gastric ulcer, one developed erosive duodenitis, and two developed reflux esophagitis, all in NSAID users; (3) neutrophil infiltration and chronic inflammation were significantly improved in all three regions after H. pylori eradication irrespective of use of NSAIDs, while atrophic change and intestinal metaplasia did not change. In the eradication failure group; (1) there was no significant change on endoscopic and histological findings in the three regions; (2) two of three ulcers present before eradication on NSAID users persisted even after eradication, and no new cases of gastric ulcer or erosive duodenitis occurred. In conclusion, over a mean follow-up period of 3.5 months, use of NSAIDs in Japanese patients with RA did not impair the healing process of gastric and duodenal ulcers nor did it affect the endoscopic and histological improvements associated with H. pylori eradication.

Should we eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in patients receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-dose aspirin?

Whether Helicobacter pylori infection alters the risk of ulcer disease in patients receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or low-dose aspirin is one of the most controversial topics in peptic ulcer research. This is an important management issue, particularly in countries where peptic ulcer disease is common and the prevalence of H. pylori infection is high. Current evidence shows that H. pylori infection increases the ulcer risk associated with NSAIDs or low-dose aspirin. Eradication of H. pylori reduces the subsequent risk of endoscopic and complicated ulcers in patients who are about to start long-term NSAIDs. Among patients with H. pylori infection and a history of ulcer bleeding who continue to use low-dose aspirin, 1 week of eradication therapy prevents recurrent ulcer bleeding. Failure of eradication and concomitant use of NSAIDs, however, account for most cases of recurrent bleeding with low-dose aspirin. The apparent protective effect of H. pylori in long-term NSAIDs users reported in some studies was actually the weeding out of susceptible patients who were intolerant to NSAIDs. There is no convincing evidence that eradication of H. pylori has any clinically important adverse effect on the healing and prevention of ulcers in NSAIDs users.

NSAID-induced peptic ulcers and Helicobacter pylori infection: implications for patient management

The conflicting data about the influence of Helicobacter pylori infection on the ulcer risk in patients receiving NSAIDs can be accounted for by the heterogeneity of study designs and the diversified host response to H. pylori. Factors that will affect the outcome include the choice of H. pylori diagnostic tests, previous ulcer complications, concurrent use of acid suppressants, NSAID-naive versus long-term users, low-dose aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) versus non-aspirin NSAIDs and whether the result was derived from a pre-specified endpoint or post hoc subgroup analysis. Current evidence suggests that H. pylori eradication reduces the ulcer risk for patients who are about to start receiving NSAIDs but not for those who are already on long-term NSAID therapy. Since treatment with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) worsens H. pylori-associated corpus gastritis, H. pylori should be tested for, and eradicated if present, before starting long-term prophylaxis with PPIs. Patients with H. pylori infection and a history of ulcer complications who require NSAIDs should receive concomitant PPIs or misoprostol after curing the infection. Among patients receiving low-dose aspirin, who have H. pylori infection and previous ulcer complications, long-term treatment with a PPI further reduces the risk of complicated ulcers if H. pylori eradication fails or if patients use concomitant non-aspirin NSAIDs. Current data on the gastric safety of COX-2 selective NSAIDs in H. pylori-infected patients are conflicting. Limited data suggest that the gastroduodenal sparing effect of rofecoxib is negated by H. pylori infection in patients who have had prior upper gastrointestinal events. In light of potential cardiovascular risk with COX-2 selective NSAIDs, it is important to weigh the potential adverse effects against the benefits for an individual patient.

Clinical significance of cytotoxin-associated gene A status of Helicobacter pylori among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users with peptic ulcer bleeding: a multicenter case-control study

BACKGROUND

The role of Helicobacter pylori infection and especially of the cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA) product strain in peptic ulcer bleeding among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) users remains controversial.

METHODS

A case-control study was carried out including 191 consecutive chronic NSAIDs users admitted to hospital because of peptic ulcer bleeding. Peptic ulcer was verified by endoscopy. Controls comprised 196 chronic NSAIDs users without signs of bleeding of similar age and gender to cases. Multivariate regression analysis was performed for further evaluation of the relationship between H. pylori, CagA status and other risk factors.

RESULTS

H. pylori infection was present in 121 (63.4%) cases compared with 119 (60.7%) controls (odds ratio (OR) = 1.14, 95% CI, 0.76-1.72). CagA-positive strains were found to be significantly more frequent in cases than in controls (65/106 versus 41/99 P = 0.008). Current smoking (OR = 2.65; 95% CI, 1.14-6.15; P= 0.02), CagA status (OR = 2.28; 95% CI, 1.24-4.19; P = 0.008), dyspepsia (OR = 6.89; 95% CI, 1.84-25.76; P = 0.004) and past history of peptic ulcer disease (OR=3.15; 95% CI, 1.43-6.92; P=0.004) were associated significantly with increased risk of bleeding peptic ulcer.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that CagA-positive H. pylori infection is associated with a more than 2-fold increased risk of bleeding peptic ulcer among chronic NSAIDs users.

Meta-analysis: the efficacy, adverse events, and adherence related to first-line anti-Helicobacter pylori quadruple therapies

BACKGROUND

Owing to rising drug-resistant Helicobacter pylori infections, currently recommended proton-pump inhibitor-based triple therapies are losing their efficacy, and regimens efficacious in the presence of drug resistance are needed.

AIMS

To summarize the efficacy, safety and adherence of first-line quadruple H. pylori therapies in adults.

METHODS

Meta-regression models identified factors explaining variation in the efficacy of first-line quadruple therapies from 145 treatment arms. Estimates of average efficacy were calculated within homogeneous groups.

RESULTS

Quadruple therapy containing a gastric acid inhibitor, bismuth, metronidazole and tetracycline was enhanced when omeprazole was included, treatment duration lasted 10-14 days, and when therapy took place in the Netherlands, Hong Kong and Australia. Treatment efficacy decreased as the prevalence of metronidazole resistance increased. Even in areas with a high prevalence of metronidazole resistance, this quadruple regimen eradicated more than 85% of H. pylori infections when it contained omeprazole and was given for 10-14 days. Furthermore, in the presence of clarithromycin resistance, this quadruple regimen eradicated 90-100% of H. pylori infections, while the currently recommended triple therapy containing clarithromycin, amoxicillin and a proton-pump inhibitor eradicated only 25-61% (P < 0.001). Adherence and adverse events for quadruple therapy were similar to currently recommended triple therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines should include quadruple therapy with a proton-pump inhibitor, a bismuth compound, metronidazole and tetracycline among recommended first-line anti-H. pylori therapies.

Should we eradicate Helicobacter pylori in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users?

The interaction between Helicobacter pylori and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in ulcerogenesis has been visited by many studies. Apparently these studies yielded conflicting results. This is a result of a wide diversity of methodology, selection of patient groups and definitions of outcome used by different investigators. This review attempts to analyse separately studies dealing with new or chronic NSAID users, primary or secondary prophylaxis, complicated or uncomplicated ulcers in NSAID or aspirin users. Evidence suggests that eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection may reduce the risk of ulcer and ulcer complications in patients requiring NSAIDs and aspirin. Whether or not one should test-and-treat H. pylori before prescribing NSAIDs is a complicated issue. Factors such as the ulcer risk of patients, previous history of NSAID usage and the use of aspirin or NSAIDs would guide the strategy.

Impact de l’infection à Helicobacter pylori sur le risque de complications gastro-duodénales des traitements anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens

The interaction of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the development of gastro-duodenal ulcers and their complications is complex and controversial. From a clinical point of view, the question is whether or not H. pylori infection should be tested and eradicated in patients treated or about to be treated by NSAIDs or low-dose aspirin. Contradictory results have been reported in epidemiological studies. Recent data suggest that H. pylori-NSAID interaction may be different depending on the type of treatment, non aspirin NSAIDs or low-dose aspirin, the gastric or duodenal localization of ulcer and the strains of H. pylori. Controlled randomized studies suggest that eradication of H. pylori may be beneficial in NSAID-naïve patients but not in those already on long term NSAID therapy. Recommendations are proposed for different subgroups of patients. In NSAID users presenting with gastro-duodenal ulcer or complications, H. pylori screening and eradication are indicated. In patients treated or about to be treated by NSAIDs, the "test and treat" H. pylori strategy is recommended if there is a history of gastroduodenal ulcer or complications. Whether this strategy should be generalized preventively in patients without ulcer history is still controversial and deserves further studies.

Traitements curatif et préventif des ulcères gastro-duodénaux induits par les AINS

The use of treatments to heal or to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) associated gastroduodenal lesions is based on replacement of mucosal prostaglandin deficiency or inhibition of acid secretion. Four-week acid suppression by proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with 7-day eradication triple therapy in Helicobacter pylori positive patients is effective in healing gastric and duodenal ulcer upon discontinuation of NSAIDs. In the event NSAIDs must be continued, PPIs (omeprazole 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg) are more effective than H2-blockers and cytoprotective agents (sucralfate, misoprostol) to heal mucosal lesions. In long-term prevention studies, omeprazole 20 mg, lansoprazole 15 mg, and pantoprazole 20 mg significantly reduce gastric and duodenal ulcer rates. Misoprostol 800 microg is as effective as PPIs for preventing symptomatic and complicated gastric ulcers, but less effective to prevent duodenal ulcer, with a high rate of adverse effects such as diarrhea. Helicobacter pylori eradication in infected patients decrease the risk of NSAIDs-associated lesions but is less effective than concomitant antisecretory treatment. Current data from comparative studies of PPIs vs ranitidine or misoprostol are in favor of the PPIs as well tolerated and effective drugs in the prophylaxis of NSAIDs-related gastroduodenal lesions in high-risk patients.

Review article: should NSAID/low-dose aspirin takers be tested routinely for H. pylori infection and treated if positive? Implications for primary risk of ulcer and ulcer relapse after initial healing

Helicobacter pylori infection and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can each result in gastric or duodenal ulcer(s) and ulcer complications. Together, H. pylori infection and NSAIDs account for approximately 90% of peptic ulcer disease. In 2003, the results of studies suggest, and guidelines recommend, the careful selection of anti-inflammatory drugs - NSAIDs or selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) based upon patients gastrointestinal history and use of aspirin therapy. Testing for, and cure of, H. pylori infection is recommended in patients prior to the initiation of NSAID therapy and in those who are currently receiving NSAIDs and have a history of dyspepsia, peptic ulcer or ulcer complications. For patients who present with peptic ulcer bleeding but require NSAIDs long-term, H. pylori eradication therapy should be considered, followed by continuous proton pump inhibitor prophylaxis to prevent re-bleeding, regardless of which kind of NSAID (nonselective NSAID /coxib) is being prescribed. Routine testing for, and eradication of, H. pylori infection has not been recommended for current takers of NSAIDs with no or low risk of complications. The management of patients taking low-dose aspirin is complex, but eradication of H. pylori infection alone in those with a past history of bleeding does not guarantee complete protection and therefore a proton pump inhibitor should also be given. The success of eradication therapy should always be confirmed, because of the risk of ulcer recurrence and bleeding in H. pylori-infected patients who require anti-inflammatory treatments.

H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer is the main cause for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and Helicobacter pylori infection is the main etiologic factor for peptic ulcer disease. Maintenance antisecretory therapy has been the standard long-term treatment for patients with bleeding ulcers to prevent recurrent bleeding. On the other hand, the precise efficacy of H. pylori eradication for the prevention of rebleeding from peptic ulcer is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (the Cochrane Library issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (January 1988 to January 2004), CINAHL (January 1982 to January 2004), and reference lists of articles. We also conducted a manual search from several congresses.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Extraction and quality assessment of studies were done by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 578 patients were included in the first meta-analysis: mean percentage of rebleeding in H. pylori eradication therapy group was 2.9%, and in the non-eradication therapy group without subsequent long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy it was 20% (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.32; there was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity; NNT was 7, 95% CI 5 to 11). Three studies with a total of 470 patients were included in the second meta-analysis: mean percentage of rebleeding in H. pylori eradication therapy group was 1.6%, and in non-eradication therapy group with long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy it was 5.6% (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; heterogeneity was not demonstrated; NNT was 20, 95% CI 12 to 100). SUBANALYSIS: Excluding patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at the time of recurrent bleeding resulted in a rebleeding rate of 2.7% (first meta-analysis) or 0.78% (second meta-analysis) in the group receiving H. pylori eradication therapy. When only patients with H. pylori eradication success were included, rebleeding rate was 1.1% in H. pylori eradication therapy group, and NNT decreased from 7 to 6. In some cases, recurrence of H. pylori infection seemed to be responsible for recurrence of bleeding.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of H. pylori infection is more effective than antisecretory non-eradicating therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) in preventing recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer. Consequently, all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding should be tested for H. pylori infection, and eradication therapy should be prescribed to H. pylori-positive patients.

Assessment of the safety of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors: where are we in 2003?

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used drugs worldwide despite their well-documented adverse gastrointestinal (GI) effects. The risk of developing a severe GI event varies from patient to patient and NSAID to NSAID. Selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs) have been designed to have similar efficacy but less GI toxicity than traditional NSAIDs, and have been shown to have an improved GI tolerability and less adverse events across a range of different GI safety assessments. In clinical trials, particularly VIGOR and CLASS, rofecoxib and celecoxib, respectively, significantly reduce the risk of ulcers and ulcer complications than nonselective NSAID comparators with ulcer rates comparable to placebo. The real benefit of a coxib comes from the sparing of the thromboxane and hence preservation of normal platelet function. Thus, there is less risk of bleeding with selective inhibition of COX-2, which is the most common and serious complication of non-selective NSAIDs. Moreover, bleeding can occur anywhere in the GI tract. Although some concern has been raised about the cardiovascular safety of coxibs, when used in recommended doses, there is no convincing evidence that patients treated with a coxib have an increased risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events. Different approaches have been advocated to minimize NSAID-related GI toxicity. Choice of less harmful NSAIDs such as coxib has been one of the strategies promoted in guidelines. The introduction of coxibs with a higher benefit-risk ratio has dramatically changed the therapeutic scenario for anti-inflammatory treatment in the clinical practice.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori improves the healing rate and reduces the relapse rate of nonbleeding ulcers in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer

OBJECTIVE

A causal relationship between Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and peptic ulcer complications remains obscure. The aim of this study was to determine the importance of H. pylori and other risk factors for healing rate, ulcer recurrence, and rebleeding in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHOD

A total of 223 patients with H. pylori positive bleeding peptic ulcer were randomly allocated to three treatment groups: 1) quadruple therapy (QT) (88 patients); 2) dual therapy (DT) (88 patients); and 3) omeprazole and placebo therapy (OPl) (47 patients). Endoscopic assessment was performed initially and at 8 and 52 wk. Ulcer healing and eradication rates were assessed; endpoints were ulcer relapse and ulcer rebleeding during 52 wk.

RESULTS

Results after 8 and 52 wk were available for 211 and 179 patients, respectively. Eradication rate was 100% (95% CI = 96-100%) in the QT, 84% (95% CI = 74-91%) in the DT, and 4% (95% CI = 1-15%) in the OPl group. Ulcer healing rate was 95% (95% CI = 91-98%) in H. pylori negative and 8% (95% CI = 70-91%) in H. pylori positive patients. Ulcer relapses occurred in 2% (95% CI = 0.5-6%) of H. pylori negative and in 38% (95% CI = 24-54%) of H. pylori positive patients, and rebleeding occurred in five patients (three H. pylori positive and two negative).

CONCLUSIONS

Eradication of H. pylori infection enhances healing of bleeding peptic ulcers after endoscopic therapy. H. pylori infection is an important independent risk factor for relapsing of nonbleeding ulcers in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer is the main cause for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and Helicobacter pylori infection is the main etiologic factor for peptic ulcer disease. Maintenance antisecretory therapy has been the standard long-term treatment for patients with bleeding ulcers to prevent recurrent bleeding. On the other hand, the precise efficacy of H. pylori eradication for the prevention of rebleeding from peptic ulcer is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (the Cochrane Library issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2003), EMBASE (January 1988 to March 2003), CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2003), and reference lists of articles. We also conducted a manual search from several congresses.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of H. pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Extraction and quality assessment of studies were done by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 355 patients were included in the first meta-analysis: mean percentage of rebleeding in H. pylori eradication therapy group was 4.5%, and in the non-eradication therapy group without subsequent long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy it was 23.7% (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.37; there was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity; NNT was 5, 95% CI 4 to 8). Three studies with a total of 470 patients were included in the second meta-analysis: mean percentage of rebleeding in H. pylori eradication therapy group was 1.6%, and in non-eradication therapy group with long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy it was 5.6% (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; heterogeneity was not demonstrated; NNT was 20, 95% CI 12 to 100). Subanalysis. Excluding patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at the time of recurrent bleeding resulted in a rebleeding rate of 4% (first meta-analysis) or 0.78% (second meta-analysis) in the group receiving H. pylori eradication therapy. When only patients with H. pylori eradication success were included, rebleeding rate was 1% in H. pylori eradication therapy group, and NNT decreased from 5 to 4. In some cases, recurrence of H. pylori infection seemed to be responsible for recurrence of bleeding.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of H. pylori infection is more effective than antisecretory non-eradicating therapy (with or without long-term maintenance antisecretory therapy) in preventing recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer. Consequently, all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding should be tested for H. pylori infection, and eradication therapy should be prescribed to H. pylori-positive patients.

Helicobacter pylori and nonmalignant disease

Helicobacter pylori eradication has become the recognized standard and widely adopted therapy to cure peptic ulcer disease. Other H. pylori associated conditions with potential benefit from eradication therapy are still subject to clinical investigations. The current state of evidence for these indications is summarized in this article. For NSAID associated peptic ulcer disease the current evidence needs to be grouped in three subsets of clinical conditions: a) H. pylori eradication for prevention of ulcers before starting NSAIDs therapy is advisable; b) eradication during PPI treatment for NSAID associated active ulcer shows no advantage on healing; and c) eradication alone is not sufficient for secondary prevention of ulcer complications induced by NSAID, however it appears to protect from further episodes of aspirin induced bleeding. In nonulcer dyspepsia the latest Cochrane collaboration review supports a small benefit in favour of H. pylori eradication. New insight in the relationship of H. pylori with GERD is provided from clinical trials which show that H. pylori eradication does not influence the clinical course of patients with reflux esophagitis. Finally important new data are presented regarding the management of dyspepsia at the primary care level with the confirmation that the H. pylori 'test and treat' strategy in the appropriate setting is more cost-effective than endoscopy.

Effect of Helicobacter pylori on delay in ulcer healing induced by aspirin in rats

Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are major pathogenic factors in peptic ulcer disease but whether these two factors exert synergistic or antagonistic effects on ulcer healing has been a subject of controversy. We compared the effect of aspirin alone with that of aspirin combined with H. pylori on gastric acid secretion and healing of acetic acid gastric ulcers in rats. The H. pylori colonization of gastric mucosa was determined by viable H. pylori culture, histology and assessment of bacterial DNA using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The area of ulcers, gastric blood flow, mucosal generation of prostaglandin E(2) and plasma gastrin levels and expression of cyclooxygenase-1, cyclooxygenase-2 and growth factors was determined. Aspirin delayed significantly the healing of chronic gastric ulcers, decreased the gastric blood flow at the ulcer margin and gastric mucosal prostaglandin E(2) generation being without significant influence on gastric acid output. H. pylori acquisition that produced moderate gastric inflammation at the ulcer margin delayed significantly the healing of gastric ulcers, decreased significantly both the gastric blood flow at the ulcer margin and the gastric secretion while raising significantly the gastric mucosal prostaglandin E(2) generation and plasma gastrin levels. H. pylori infection attenuated the aspirin-induced inhibition of ulcer healing and accompanying fall in the gastric blood flow. Both aspirin and H. pylori up-regulated significantly cyclooxygenase-2 messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein but not that of cyclooxygenase-1 at the ulcer margin. Aspirin reduced significantly the transforming growth factor alpha- and vascular endothelial growth factor mRNAs, but these effects were significantly attenuated by H. pylori. We conclude that H. pylori antagonizes, in part, aspirin-induced delay of ulcer healing due to suppression of acid secretion, the enhancement in prostaglandin E(2) possibly derived from cyclooxygenase-2 and the overexpression of transforming growth factor alpha and vascular endothelial growth factor in the ulcer area.

Effect of H. pylori status on gastric ulcer healing in patients continuing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy and receiving treatment with lansoprazole or ranitidine

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this research was to determine the impact of pretreatment Helicobacter pylori infection on gastric ulcer healing rates in patients receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antisecretory medications.

METHODS

This was a pooled, prospective analysis of two identical double blind, multicenter, parallel group studies. Six hundred ninety-two patients receiving NSAIDs and with endoscopy-documented gastric ulcers were enrolled from 90 North American sites in primary care and referral centers. Patients were randomized to receive ranitidine (150 mg b.i.d.) or lansoprazole (15 mg or 30 mg once daily) for 8 wk. Ulcer healing was assessed by endoscopy at 4 and 8 wk in an intent-to-treat population. H. pylori status was determined at baseline by histology.

RESULTS

Across all three treatment groups, gastric ulcers were more likely to heal and heal faster if the individual was infected with H. pylori. Healing rates at 8 wk were statistically significantly greater among H. pylori positive patients (n = 181) than among negative patients (n = 497) (70% vs 61%, respectively; p < 0.05), especially among those with large ulcers (> 10 mm) and in younger patients (< 60 yr old). Simple healing rates (regardless of H. pylori status) were significantly better in the 15- and 30-mg lansoprazole groups than in the ranitidine group after 4 wk (46%, 54%, and 32%, respectively; p < or = 0.01) and 8 wk (66%, 74%, and 50%, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving NSAIDs, gastric ulcer healing with an antisecretory agent is significantly enhanced in the presence of H. pylori infection.

Review article: Helicobacter pylori infection in peptic ulcer haemorrhage

In this overview, medical advice for routine clinical practice regarding peptic ulcer haemorrhage (PUH) is given, based on the extensive literature about Helicobacter pylori and the controversial results about the interaction of H. pylori infection and nonsteriodal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use. PUH remains an important emergency situation with an incidence between 32 and 51/100 000 persons per year. There is a high association between H. pylori infection and peptic ulcer disease. The association between H. pylori infection and PUH is less clear, but a strong argument for the aetiological role is the fact that eradication of H. pylori decreases recurrence of bleeding. NSAID use is another important risk factor for PUH. H. pylori infection and NSAID use seem to act independently, although some studies show a synergistic interaction while other studies report that H. pylori is protective against the development of PUH in NSAID users. All patients with PUH should be tested for H. pylori infection, regardless of the use of NSAIDs. Because invasive tests are less sensitive in PUH patients, negative tests in patients with no other risk factors should be confirmed by serology or urea breath test (UBT). Eradication therapy with a proton pump inhibitor or ranitidine bismuth citrate-based triple therapy should be given to all H. pylori-positive patients. Only for nonaspirin-NSAID users does the effect of eradication therapy on the healing of gastric ulcers remain controversial, but currently we also advise eradication of H. pylori in this subgroup. After eradication therapy, acid-suppressant therapy is advised to heal the ulcer. The success of eradication should always be confirmed because of the risk of recurrence of peptic ulcer disease and bleeding in H. pylori-infected patients.

Review article: the effect of Helicobacter pylori infection on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced upper gastrointestinal tract injury

Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the two major causes of peptic ulcers. This article reviews the interaction of H. pylori and NSAIDs on the development of gastric mucosal histological changes, endoscopically confirmed ulcers, and ulcer complications, and assesses whether underlying H. pylori infection potentiates (or mitigates) the development of NSAID-induced ulcer disease. The weight of evidence does not suggest that H. pylori infection potentiates the risk of ulcer formation or ulcer complications in NSAID users. If such an effect occurs, it is likely to be relatively small. Some data even suggest that H. pylori may be protective against NSAID-induced gastric ulcers. Limited data raise the possibility that H. pylori infection, however, may potentiate the effect of low-dose aspirin with respect to ulcer bleeding. Both NSAIDs and H. pylori are independent risk factors for ulcer disease. Therefore, in an individual patient with an ulcer, one cannot be certain which factor is responsible for the ulcer, and both risks should be removed if possible.

Critical effect of Helicobacter pylori infection on the effectiveness of omeprazole for prevention of gastric or duodenal ulcers among chronic NSAID users

BACKGROUND

The recently reported OMNIUM and ASTRONAUT NSAID ulcer prevention trials using omeprazole to prevent endoscopic ulcer recurrence among chronic NSAID users suggested superiority over misoprostol or ranitidine.

AIM

To test the hypothesis the results from the OMNIUM and ASTRONAUT studies would not be generalizible as ulcer healing and ulcer recurrence would differ in relation to Helicobacter pylori status.

METHODS

The data regarding H. pylori status were made available by AstraZenca allowing separate analysis of the outcome of those with NSAID ulcers (i.e. without H. pylori infection) and those NSAID use was complicated with the presence of an active H. pylori infection.

RESULTS

Reanalysis confirmed that omeprazole was superior to placebo for the prevention of ulcer recurrence in chronic NSAID users. However, overall omeprazole was not significantly better than the subtherapeutic dose (400 microg/day) of misoprostol (14.5% vs. 19.6%, respectively, p =.93); 400 microg of misoprostol was actually superior to omeprazole for the prevention of gastric ulcers among those NSAID ulcers (8.2% vs. 16.6% for misoprostol and omeprazole, respectively; p <.05). Omeprazole was also not statistically different from misoprostol for gastric ulcer prevention in those whose NSAID use was complicated by an active H. pylori infection. Omeprazole was not significantly different from 300 mg of ranitidine for the prevention of NSAID gastric ulcers (14.6% vs. 11.6%, respectively, p =.56). Duodenal ulcers were over represented among H. pylori infected NSAID users and duodenal ulcer prevention was more sensitive to acid suppression than gastric ulcer.

CONCLUSION

The OMNIUM and ASTRONAUT trials may have provided an unrealistic sense of security regarding the effectiveness of omeprazole for protection against ulcer recurrence in chronic NSAID users.

Role of Helicobacter pylori infection and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in peptic-ulcer disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relation between H pylori infection and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the pathogenesis of peptic-ulcer disease is controversial. We undertook a meta-analysis to address this issue.

METHODS

By computer and manually we sought observational studies on the prevalence of peptic-ulcer disease in adult NSAID takers or the prevalence of H pylori infection and NSAID use in patients with peptic-ulcer bleeding. Summary odds ratios were calculated from the raw data. Tests for homogeneity were done.

FINDINGS

Of 463 citations identified, 25 studies met inclusion criteria. In 16 studies of 1625 NSAID takers, uncomplicated peptic-ulcer disease was significantly more common in patients positive than in those negative for H pylori (341/817 [41.7%] vs 209/808 [25.9%]; odds ratio 2.12 [95% CI 1.68-2.67]). In five controlled studies, peptic-ulcer disease was significantly more common in NSAID takers (138/385 [35.8%]) than in controls (23/276 [8.3%]), irrespective of H pylori infection. Compared with H pylori negative individuals not taking NSAIDs, the risk of ulcer in H pylori infected NSAID takers was 61.1 (9.98-373). H pylori infection increased the risk of peptic-ulcer disease in NSAID takers 3.53-fold in addition to the risk associated with NSAID use (odds ratio 19.4). Similarly, in the presence of risk of peptic-ulcer disease associated with H pylori infection (18.1), use of NSAIDs increased the risk of peptic-ulcer disease 3.55-fold. H pylori infection and NSAID use increased the risk of ulcer bleeding 1.79-fold and 4.85-fold, respectively. However, the risk of ulcer bleeding increased to 6.13 when both factors were present.

INTERPRETATION

Both H pylori infection and NSAID use independently and significantly increase the risk of peptic ulcer and ulcer bleeding. There is synergism for the development of peptic ulcer and ulcer bleeding between H pylori infection and NSAID use. Peptic-ulcer disease is rare in H pylori negative non-NSAID takers.

Helicobacter pylori-associated peptic ulcer disease in older patients: current management strategies

The incidence of peptic ulcer and its severe complications, i.e. bleeding or perforation, is increasing in elderly patients worldwide. The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with peptic ulcer aged over 65 years has been reported to range from 58 to 78%. However, in elderly patients hospitalised for ulcer disease, the rate of diagnostic screening or treatment for H. pylori infection was less than 60%, and only 50 to 73% of patients who had a positive H. pylori test were treated with antibacterials. The eradication of H. pylori infection is known to be of proven benefit for elderly patients with H. pylori-associated ulcer disease. Significant improvement of the clinical outcome, and reduction of ulcer recurrences, symptoms and histological signs of ulcer-associated chronic gastritis activity, as well as decreased costs in elderly healthcare, all result from successful therapy. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapy regimens including clarithromycin, amoxicillin and/or nitroimidazoles are highly effective and well tolerated in elderly patients, particularly if therapy is of a short duration and low doses of both the PPI and clarithromycin are used. Resistance of H. pylori to antibacterials and low compliance are the major reasons for treatment failure. Surveillance of H. pylori susceptibility to antibacterials at the regional level and enhanced compliance programmes give promising results that suggest new approaches to anti-H. pylori treatment, especially in elderly patients. The role of H. pylori infection in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related peptic ulcer still remains controversial. At present, no clear evidence supports the testing and treatment of H. pylori infection for the prevention of drug-related peptic ulcer in elderly patients receiving an NSAID or aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid). After therapy, elderly patients with peptic ulcer may be re-evaluated by invasive methods, i.e. endoscopy and gastric biopsies. or by noninvasive methods. In elderly patients, the 13C-urea breath test demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for detecting H. pylori infection than anti-H. pylori antibodies.

Helicobacter pylori, NSAIDs and gastrointestinal haemorrhage

Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) cause the majority of bleeding ulcers. Whether the presence of H. pylori infection would affect the risk of ulcers in patients taking NSAIDs is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. However, the results have been so conflicting that there is no consensus on the management of patients requiring NSAIDs who are infected with H. pylori. The controversy is largely due to the variable study design and marked heterogeneity of the study population. Studying the interaction between H. pylori and NSAIDs without considering these factors often leads to erroneous conclusions. Current evidence suggests that H. pylori contributes to an increased ulcer risk for patients who are about to start NSAID treatment, whereas NSAIDs probably account for the majority of ulcer disease in patients who are already taking long-term NSAIDs. In the light of the reduced gastric toxicity of COX-2 inhibitors, the relative importance of H. pylori in the pathogenesis of ulcers is expected to increase. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that H. pylori contributes to ulcer bleeding associated with low-dose aspirin. Among H. pylori-positive patients with a history of ulcer bleeding who are taking low-dose aspirin, the eradication of H. pylori has been shown to be comparable to omeprazole in preventing recurrent bleeding.

Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Indications and regimens: an update

The management of Helicobacter pylori infection is still surrounded by controversy and uncertainties. Indications and correct application of current regimens for Helicobacter pylori infection are still considered a matter of debate. Regarding indications, only peptic ulcer and mucosa associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma are considered clear indications for treatment. In other conditions, such as atrophic gastritis, post gastric cancer resection, first-degree relatives of gastric cancer patients, dyspeptic patients, patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users, the value of Helicobacter pylori eradication is still controversial. The regimens for first-line and second-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection have been recommended by the Maastricht 2 Consensus Report. Although all the treatments are considered to be effective, physicians still do not agree on what first-line regimen should be used. Furthermore, a consensus on the duration of the antibiotic treatment is still lacking, although Maastricht guidelines for treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection recommend a one-week therapy. Also regimens, as a third-line treatment, and methods to improve compliance and clinical outcome are still a matter of debate. All these points will be considered in the present review

Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

The complex interaction between H. pylori and NSAIDs implies that it is over simplistic to conclude that their relationship is independent, synergistic, or antagonistic without considering the influence of other factors. Factors such as previous exposure to NSAIDs, a history of ulcer complication, concurrent use of acid-suppressant therapy, and the difference between NSAIDs and low-dose aspirin all affect the outcome. Several recommendations can be made with regard to the indications of H. pylori eradication for patients requiring NSAIDs. First, patients taking NSAIDs who have ulcers or previous ulcer disease should be tested for the bacterium, and it should be eradicated if present because it is impossible to determine whether the ulcers are caused by H. pylori or NSAIDs or both. Antiulcer drugs should be prescribed to prevent ulcer recurrence for patients who continue to require NSAIDs. Although the efficacy of omeprazole is enhanced by H. pylori infection, it is not justified to leave a pathogen in the stomach in exchange for a modest therapeutic gain. Second, for patients who take low-dose aspirin, eradication of H. pylori substantially reduces the risk of ulcer bleeding. It is advisable that patients taking low-dose aspirin who are at risk of ulcer bleeding should be tested for H. pylori and treated for it if the infection is found. Third, for patients who are about to start NSAIDs, screen-and-treat H. pylori has the potential of reducing the ulcer risk at an affordable incremental cost. It might be argued that any interaction between H. pylori and NSAIDs would become irrelevant in the era of COX-2-selective NSAIDs. Even among patients who are receiving a COX-2-selective NSAID, however, a large-scale study showed that the ulcer risk is significantly higher in H. pylori-positive patients than in uninfected patients. This finding suggests that the relative importance of H. pylori in ulcer development might increase with a reduced toxicity of COX-2-selective NSAIDs. With an increasing use of low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis, the problem of aspirin-related ulcer disease is expected to rise. Given the significant role of H. pylori in the latter condition, screen-and-treat H. pylori might be a useful strategy for the prevention of ulcer complications in high-risk patients receiving low-dose aspirin in the future.

Gastro-duodenal protection in an era of cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective and necessary for the relief of pain and inflammation in patients with arthritis. NSAIDs are however also associated with an increased risk for ulceration in the stomach and in the duodenum, and many NSAID users experience bothersome dyspeptic symptoms during continued NSAID therapy. PPIs like omeprazole, have been shown to heal and to prevent ulcers and dyspeptic symptoms during continued NSAID therapy, and during continued NSAID therapy the prostaglandin analogue, misoprostol, has been shown to reduce the risk for ulcer complications. The COX-2 selective NSAID, rofecoxib, is in comparison with naproxen, a non-selective NSAID, associated with fewer clinically important upper gastrointestinal events. The incidence of myocardial infarctions seems, however, to be lower with naproxen than with rofecoxib, and this is expected to lead to low-dose aspirin use in rofecoxib users at risk for cardiovascular events. Co-administration of the COX-2 selective NSAID, celecoxib, and low-dose aspirin, is associated with the same risk for upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers, as the non-selective NSAIDs, ibuprofen and diclofenac. A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) should be used for healing of NSAID-associated ulcers, and a PPI or misoprostol should be considered for prevention of ulceration in non-selective NSAID users at risk for ulceration. The experience with COX-2 selective NSAIDs is still limited, and it remains to be studied whether subpopulations of COX-2 selective NSAID users will benefit from gastro-duodenal protection.

Gastrointestinal safety of COX-2 specific inhibitors

Coxibs are a major advance in the therapy of patients with painful and inflammatory conditions. At present, the theoretical harm that derives from inhibiting vascular COX-2 has not emerged as a significant risk, although more research is needed. What has emerged is that some NSAIDs, particularly naproxen, may have an aspirin-like effect in reducing the risk of vascular disease, although more research is needed. Whether this finding is sufficient to recommend naproxen for the management of patients with arthritis who also require vascular protection is intriguing and worth further evaluation. It is widely believed and maintained that coxibs have the greatest potential value in patients with other risk factors for ulcer disease, and this seems likely to be the case for patients taking corticosteroids or anticoagulants and probably those who are elderly. Dosing should be [figure: see text] cautious in old patients, however, because of the ability of NSAIDs and coxibs to cause fluid retention, heart failure, and hypertension. It is less clear that coxibs reduce risk sufficiently in patients with previous ulceration (particularly recent) to make them a better strategy than acid co-therapy. This possibility requires further evaluation, as does the competing value of the 2 strategies for patients infected with H. pylori. If coxibs are used in patients with H. pylori-associated risks, there are grounds to recommend eradication. For patients taking aspirin or drugs [figure: see text] with an aspirin-like effect, the intrinsic risk of these drugs may mandate use of acid suppression and obviate the use of coxibs (Fig. 8). Available data suggest that the risk reduction in patients with no risk factors who use coxibs may be almost as great as in patients with risk factors, with the added advantage that patients may be taken to a state that is virtually free of any risk of ulcer complications that otherwise might require additional therapy. Contrary to current popular truisms, the greatest value of coxibs may be in patients without risk factors because it is in this unconfounded group that the ability of coxibs to free patients of ulcer risk appears to be delivered in full.

Helicobacter pylori infection and the use of NSAIDs

Helicobacter pylori infection and the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can each result in gastroduodenal ulcers and ulcer complications. Recent studies have suggested that there is an interaction between the two causes such that elimination of H. pylori before NSAID treatment decreases the occurrence of ulcers. This led to the conclusion of the Maastricht 2000 meeting that H. pylori eradication should be considered before embarking on long-term NSAID therapy. One of the main sources of confusion is related to the fact that prospective endoscopic studies testing various drugs for prevention of NSAID ulcers among chronic NSAID users are probably not directly applicable to problems of clinical ulcers and of ulcer complications. It has become clear that, to be interpretable clinically, such studies must provide separate analyses based on H. pylori status, history of ulcer, or an ulcer complication. Overall, the data strongly support the notion that eradication therapy is beneficial for primary prophylaxis. In contrast, one would expect little benefit when NSAIDs caused the clinical ulcer (secondary prevention) and, at best, H. pylori eradication has a modest effect on the prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in NSAID users who have suffered ulcer complications. The data support the notion that H. pylori eradication therapy should be given to all H. pylori -infected patients with peptic ulcers irrespective of whether or not they have used NSAIDs. Proton pump inhibitors are superior to placebo for the prevention of ulcer recurrence but are inferior to full-dose misoprostol for the prevention of ulcers among those with NSAID ulcers and no H. pylori infection. Selective COX-2 inhibitors appear to reduce markedly, but not eliminate, ulcer complications among chronic NSAID users.

Helicobacter pylori and NSAID gastropathy: an ambiguous association

Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with adverse gastro- intestinal effects ranging from mild dyspepsia to serious complications such as bleeding peptic ulcer. However, controversy persists regarding the interaction between these two well-documented risk factors. Physiology studies reveal that H. pylori infection can protect the upper gastrointestinal tract by increasing prostaglandin levels. In contrast, clinical trial evidence suggests that eradication of H. pylori infection leads to a decreased risk for endoscopic ulcers in people taking NSAIDs. Given the rates of morbidity and mortality and costs attributable to NSAID-associated toxicity, preventive strategies to reduce NSAID side-effects remain important. Until controlled investigations definitively quantify the effect of H. pylori infection and eradication on clinically significant adverse events, a compelling argument can be made for H. pylori testing of chronic NSAID users at increased risk for ulcer disease and eradicating the organism if present.

Approaches to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in the high-risk patient

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are probably the most common cause of gastroduodenal injury in the United States today. Approximately half of patients who regularly take NSAIDs have gastric erosions, and 15%-30% have ulcers when they are examined endoscopically. However, the incidence of clinical gastrointestinal (GI) events caused by NSAIDs is much lower. Clinical upper GI events may occur in 3%-4.5% of patients taking NSAIDs, and serious complicated events develop in approximately 1.5%. However, the risk varies widely in relationship to clinical features such as history of ulcers or GI events, age, concomitant anticoagulant or steroid use, and NSAID dose. This review discusses the risks of clinical GI disease in NSAID users, the predictors of increased risk, and strategies for prevention of NSAID-associated GI disease.

Management of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related peptic ulcer bleeding

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have superseded Helicobacter pylori infection as the most important cause of peptic ulcer bleeding. Eradication of H. pylori in NSAID users will not affect ulcer healing. In high-risk patients with a history of ulcer bleeding, curing H. pylori infection alone without acid suppression has substantially reduced the risk of rebleeding caused by low-dose aspirin but not nonaspirin NSAIDs. In a study comparing the safety profile of misoprostol in combination with NSAID against nabumetone in high-risk patients with a history of ulcer bleeding, both strategies were unable to confer significant protection against the risk of rebleeding.

The nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs controversy

The relationship between NSAIDs and H. pylori as risk factors for the development of peptic ulcer is complex and controversial. In the case of duodenal ulcers in NSAID users, there now is enough information to suggest that eradication of H. pylori usually is worthwhile. In the stomach, however, there is some evidence that ulcers heal faster and are no more likely to reappear if the infection is left alone, provided that patients continue to take an NSAID. Why this situation should be so is unclear. Possibilities include greater efficacy of antisecretory agents, a smaller inhibition of prostaglandin production, and a blunted apoptotic response in patients who are infected with H. pylori and take NSAIDs.

[Helicobacter pylori and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents]

Observations on the interactions between the two main causes of gastroduodenal lesions--treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and Helicobacter pylori(H.p.)-infection--remain controversial. However, H.p.-infection does not need to be harmful additively or synergistically, but could also be protective against the toxic effects of NSAIDs on the mucosa. Therefore, specific therapeutic strategies are needed for different clinical situations.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity in the upper gastrointestinal tract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) toxicity in the upper gastrointestinal tract is the most common serious drug-induced toxicity reported to drug regulatory authorities. In the last two decades, the rediscovery of H. pylori, development of potent ulcer-healing drugs and specific Cox-II inhibitors have opened new horizons in the management of NSAID toxicity. A Working Party composed of gastroenterologists and rheumatologists in the Asia-Pacific region met in Cairns, Australia, in 1999 to review the literature and develop appropriate guidelines. Recommendations were made based on the latest existing evidence. The importance of clinical events as study endpoints was emphasized. While differences exist between NSAIDs and aspirin, most studies have shown that advanced age, history of peptic ulcer disease, serious concomitant illnesses and coprescription of NSAID/aspirin with anticoagulants and steroids are high risk factors. These patients should be considered for prophylactic anti-ulcer therapy. Helicobacter pylori infection may aggravate the toxicity of NSAIDs and, in selected cases, should be treated before NSAID/aspirin is prescribed. Proton pump inhibitors and misoprostol are the most promising agents in preventing gastric and duodenal ulcers. When NSAID/aspirin needs to be continued in patients who develop an NSAID-related ulcer, proton pump inhibitors offer the best healing effect. With the discovery of cyclo-oxygenase isoforms (Cox-I and Cox-II), preferential and specific Cox-II inhibitors have been developed. While early clinical data have suggested promising antiinflammatory effects and improved safety profile in the gastrointestinal tract, several key issues on long-term safety remain unresolved. The use of potent anti-ulcer therapy, treatment of H. pylori infection and the development of Cox-II inhibitor will change the scenario of NSAID/aspirin-related gastrointestinal toxicity in the next millennium.

Review article: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and Helicobacter pylori

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and Helicobacter pylori are well-recognized causes of gastroduodenal mucosal damage. This damage is mediated through the effects of both agents on acid secretion, neutrophil activity and function, and prosta- glandin metabolism. Clinical trials on the interrelation- ship between H. pylori, NSAIDs and gastroduodenal mucosal injury have yielded conflicting results. No consensus has been reached on what recommenda- tions should be implemented with regard to H. pylori eradication in patients on long-term NSAID therapy. At present, the presence of H. pylori is identified at endoscopy and eradication is carried out in symptomatic patients. Asymptomatic patients remain a dilemma that requires further investigation. Clinical practice will continue to be tailored to a patient's individual requirements. Therefore, in patients at risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and on NSAID therapy, acid suppression therapy should be prescribed.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy

By inhibiting prostaglandin synthesis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compromise gastroduodenal defense mechanism including blood flow and mucus/bicarbonate secretion. This has led to NSAIDs being the most widely reported drug cause of adverse events. While NSAIDs also cause dyspepsia, inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis may reduce this from even higher levels that would otherwise prevail and mask ulcer-related dyspepsia, making anticipatory management difficult. On average, the risk of ulcer complications increases 4-fold, resulting in 1.25 additional hospitalizations per 100 patient-years according to one estimate. Older patients, those with a past history, and those taking anticoagulants or corticosteroids are at higher risk. Risk is dose dependent and is lower with ibuprofen at low doses than with other NSAIDs. It is unlikely that Helicobacter pylori increases the risk, and under some circumstances it may be protective. Selective inhibitors of the inducible cyclooxygenase 2 spare gastric mucosal prostaglandin synthesis and do not damage the gastric mucosa. Their place in therapy, compared with use of misoprostol or proton pump inhibitors, is currently emerging. Future competitors may include nitric oxide-donating, zwitterionic, or R-enantiomer NSAIDs.