Systematic review: Would susceptibility-guided treatment achieve acceptable cure rates for second-line Helicobacter pylori therapy as currently practiced?

BACKGROUND

Susceptibility-guided treatment has been proposed as a way to improve Helicobacter pylori eradication rates. Evidence on its efficacy for rescue therapy is very scarce. The aim of this study was to indirectly assess the applicability and effectiveness of susceptibility-guided treatment by evaluating (a) the rate of acceptance of endoscopy, (b) its success in detecting resistances, and (c) infection cure rates in patients harboring strains found to be susceptible to the antibiotics administered in clinical trials in which the efficacy of second-line treatments was reported.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies evaluating second-line H pylori treatment was carried out in multiple databases. Studies reporting antibiotic susceptibility evaluation and/or cure rates in patients harboring sensitive and resistant strains were selected. Data were extracted in duplicate.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 36 eligible studies. Acceptance was evaluated in only one study of 60 patients, of whom only 38 agreed to endoscopy. Among the 2890 patients who received endoscopy and culture, resistances were finally determined in 86.5%. Cure rate was 72.5% in the 113 patients harboring a clarithromycin-susceptible strain after previous clarithromycin treatment, 93.5% in the 765 patients harboring a metronidazole-susceptible strain, and 83.8% in the 192 patients harboring a levofloxacin-susceptible strain. No studies with repeated administration of levofloxacin or metronidazole were found.

CONCLUSION

Even if the culture shows a clarithromycin-sensitive strain, repeating clarithromycin after a first failure should be discouraged. Susceptibility-guided treatment alone did not achieve adequate cure rates for rescue therapies. Additional measures are needed to design rescue treatments that consistently achieve excellent cure rates.

Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori resistance after failure of first-line therapy. A systematic review

There are no systematic data on the rates of antibiotic resistance after the failure of a first eradication treatment. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of secondary resistance to antibiotics by conducting a systematic review of studies evaluating the secondary resistance of Helicobacter pylori. We identified 31 studies (2,787 patients). Resistance was determined in 1,764 patients. A percentage of 99.1 of patients received clarithromycin as first-line treatment and 58.7% developed resistance. A percentage of 24.3 received metronidazole and 89.7% developed resistance. Secondary resistance to amoxicillin was extremely rare. Secondary resistance after first-line treatment was very common. These findings support the recommendation not to repeat clarithromycin or metronidazole after the failure of a first eradication treatment.

Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression: Successful second-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori

BACKGROUND

Multiple Helicobacter pylori second-line schedules have been described as potentially useful. It remains unclear, however, which are the best combinations, and which features of second-line treatments are related to better cure rates. The aim of this study was to determine that second-line treatments achieved excellent (>90%) cure rates by performing a systematic review and when possible a meta-analysis. A meta-regression was planned to determine the characteristics of treatments achieving excellent cure rates.

METHODS

A systematic review for studies evaluating second-line Helicobacter pylori treatment was carried out in multiple databases. A formal meta-analysis was performed when an adequate number of comparative studies was found, using RevMan5.3. A meta-regression for evaluating factors predicting cure rates >90% was performed using Stata Statistical Software.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 115 eligible studies, including 203 evaluable treatment arms. The results were extremely heterogeneous, with 61 treatment arms (30%) achieving optimal (>90%) cure rates. The meta-analysis favored quadruple therapies over triple (83.2% vs 76.1%, OR: 0.59:0.38-0.93; P = .02) and 14-day quadruple treatments over 7-day treatments (91.2% vs 81.5%, OR; 95% CI: 0.42:0.24-0.73; P = .002), although the differences were significant only in the per-protocol analysis. The meta-regression did not find any particular characteristics of the studies to be associated with excellent cure rates.

CONCLUSION

Second-line Helicobacter pylori treatments achieving>90% cure rates are extremely heterogeneous. Quadruple therapy and 14-day treatments seem better than triple therapies and 7-day ones. No single characteristic of the treatments was related to excellent cure rates. Future approaches suitable for infectious diseases-thus considering antibiotic resistances-are needed to design rescue treatments that consistently achieve excellent cure rates.

Systematic review: third-line susceptibility-guided treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Susceptibility-guided therapies (SGTs) have been proposed as preferable to empirical rescue treatments after two treatment failures. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of SGT as third-line therapy.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in multiple databases. Studies reporting cure rates of Helicobacter pylori with SGT in third-line therapy were selected. A qualitative analysis describing the current evidence and a pooled mean analysis summarizing the cure rates of SGT in third-line therapy was performed.

RESULTS

No randomized controlled trials or comparative studies were found. Four observational studies reported cure rates with SGT in third-line treatment, and three studies which mixed patients with second- and third-line treatment also reported cure rates with SGT. The majority of the studies included the patients when culture had been already obtained, and so the effectiveness of SGT and empirical therapy has never been compared. A pooled mean analysis including four observational studies (283 patients) showed intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates with SGT of 72% (95% confidence interval 56-87%; I(2) : 92%) and 80% (95% confidence interval 71-90%; I(2) : 80%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SGT may be an acceptable option as rescue treatment. However, cure rates are, at best, moderate and this approach has never been compared with a well-devised empirical therapy. The evidence in favor of SGT as rescue therapy is currently insufficient to recommend its use.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: susceptibility-guided versus empirical antibiotic treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

The cure rate of standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is unacceptably low. Susceptibility-guided therapies (SGTs) have been proposed as an alternative to standard empirical treatments. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of SGTs.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in multiple databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing cure rates of SGTs versus those of empirical therapy were selected and analysed separately for first- and second-line treatments. A meta-analysis was performed using risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT) to measure the effect.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. In first-line treatment, SGT was more efficacious than empirical 7-10 day triple therapy (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10-1.23, I (2) = 33%; NNT = 8). Most studies used a 7-10 day triple therapy and randomized the patients after endoscopy and/or culture, thus precluding the comparison of SGT versus non-invasive testing and empirical treatment in clinical practice. For second-line therapy, only four studies were found. Results were highly heterogeneous and no significant differences were found (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.82-1.51, I (2) = 87%).

CONCLUSIONS

Once endoscopy and culture have been performed, SGT is superior to empirical 7 or 10 day triple therapy for first-line treatment. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of SGT in clinical practice, especially when compared with currently recommended first-line quadruple therapies.