Empirical Helicobacter pylori rescue therapy: an 18‐year single‐centre study of 1200 patients

Current paradigms in the management of refractory Helicobacter pylori infection

Helicobacter pylori is the most prevalent chronic bacterial infection, with approximately half of the world's population estimated to be colonized. The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified Helicobacter pylori as a class-I carcinogen. All main society guidelines recommend its eradication in infected individuals. The global trend indicates that eradication rates are decreasing annually and the likelihood of eradication decreases with each unsuccessful therapeutic attempt. Resistance to antibiotics in H. pylori strains is the leading cause for eradication failure. Still, drug resistance and treatment failure may be complex, multi-dimensional and associated with several other factors. Knowledge of these factors can aid in optimizing eradication rates. This review will focus on the factors associated with refractory H. pylori, with a particular emphasis on antibiotic resistance mechanisms and their clinical implications. Also, the most recent literature and recommendations available for determining an appropriate regimen after the failure of the first attempt at eradication will be discussed.

Empirical rescue treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in third and subsequent lines: 8-year experience in 2144 patients from the European Registry on H. pylori management (Hp-EuReg)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use, effectiveness and safety of Helicobacter pylori empirical rescue therapy in third and subsequent treatment lines in Europe.

DESIGN

International, prospective, non-interventional registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists. Data were collected and quality reviewed until October 2021 at Asociación Española de Gastroenterología-Research Electronic Data Capture. All cases with three or more empirical eradication attempts were assessed for effectiveness by modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 2144 treatments were included: 1519, 439, 145 and 41 cases from third, fourth, fifth and sixth treatment lines, respectively. Sixty different therapies were used; the 15 most frequently prescribed encompassed >90% of cases. Overall effectiveness remained <90% in all therapies. Optimised treatments achieved a higher eradication rate than non-optimised (78% vs 67%, p<0.0001). From 2017 to 2021, only 44% of treatments other than 10-day single-capsule therapy used high proton-pump inhibitor doses and lasted ≥14 days. Quadruple therapy containing metronidazole, tetracycline and bismuth achieved optimal eradication rates only when prescribed as third-line treatment, either as 10-day single-capsule therapy (87%) or as 14-day traditional therapy with tetracycline hydrochloride (95%). Triple amoxicillin-levofloxacin therapy achieved 90% effectiveness in Eastern Europe only or when optimised. The overall incidence of adverse events was 31%.

CONCLUSION

Empirical rescue treatment in third and subsequent lines achieved suboptimal effectiveness in most European regions. Only quadruple bismuth-metronidazole-tetracycline (10-day single-capsule or 14-day traditional scheme) and triple amoxicillin-levofloxacin therapies reached acceptable outcomes in some settings. Compliance with empirical therapy optimisation principles is still poor 5 years after clinical practice guidelines update.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02328131.

Management of Helicobacter pylori infection: the Maastricht VI/Florence consensus report

Helicobacter pyloriInfection is formally recognised as an infectious disease, an entity that is now included in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision. This in principle leads to the recommendation that all infected patients should receive treatment. In the context of the wide clinical spectrum associated with Helicobacter pylori gastritis, specific issues persist and require regular updates for optimised management.The identification of distinct clinical scenarios, proper testing and adoption of effective strategies for prevention of gastric cancer and other complications are addressed. H. pylori treatment is challenged by the continuously rising antibiotic resistance and demands for susceptibility testing with consideration of novel molecular technologies and careful selection of first line and rescue therapies. The role of H. pylori and antibiotic therapies and their impact on the gut microbiota are also considered.Progress made in the management of H. pylori infection is covered in the present sixth edition of the Maastricht/Florence 2021 Consensus Report, key aspects related to the clinical role of H. pylori infection were re-evaluated and updated. Forty-one experts from 29 countries representing a global community, examined the new data related to H. pylori infection in five working groups: (1) indications/associations, (2) diagnosis, (3) treatment, (4) prevention/gastric cancer and (5) H. pylori and the gut microbiota. The results of the individual working groups were presented for a final consensus voting that included all participants. Recommendations are provided on the basis of the best available evidence and relevance to the management of H. pylori infection in various clinical fields.

Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Treating Helicobacter pylori infection according to antibiotic resistance has been frequently recommended. However, information on its real effectiveness is scarce.

Aim

The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis comparing empirical vs. susceptibility-guided treatment of H. pylori.

Methods

Selection of studies: Studies comparing empirical versus susceptibility-guided treatment were selected. Search strategy: electronic and manual up to August 2021. Data synthesis: by intention-to-treat (random-effects model).

Results

Overall, 54 studies were included (6,705 patients in the susceptibility-guided group and 7,895 in the empirical group). H. pylori eradication rate was 86 vs. 76%, respectively (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.08-1.17; I 2: 83%). Similar results were found when only RCTs were evaluated (24 studies; RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.11-1.22; I 2: 71%) and when susceptibility testing was assessed by culture (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.06-1.18) or PCR (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05-1.23). For first-line treatments (naïve patients; 30 studies), better efficacy results were obtained with the susceptibility-guided strategy (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.11-1.20; I 2: 79%). However, for empirical first-line quadruple regimens, in particular (both with and without bismuth, excluding the suboptimal triple therapies), not based on CYP2C19 gene polymorphism, no differences in efficacy were found compared with the susceptibility-guided group (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99-1.09); this lack of difference was confirmed in RCTs (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.99-1.12). For rescue therapies (13 studies, most 2nd-line), similar results were demonstrated for both strategies, including all studies (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.97-1.22; I 2: 82%) and when only RCTs were considered (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.97-1.36).

Conclusion

The benefit of susceptibility-guided treatment over empirical treatment of H. pylori infection could not be demonstrated, either in first-line (if the most updated quadruple regimens are prescribed) or in rescue therapies.

V Spanish Consensus Conference on Helicobacter pylori infection treatment

Helicobacter pylori infection is very common in the Spanish population and represents the main cause of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer, and gastric cancer. The last iteration of Spanish consensus guidelines on H. pylori infection was conducted in 2016. Recent changes in therapeutic schemes along with increasing supporting evidence were key for developing the V Spanish Consensus Conference (May 2021). Fourteen experts performed a systematic review of the scientific evidence and developed a series of recommendations that were subjected to an anonymous Delphi process of iterative voting. Scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation were classified using GRADE guidelines. An eradication therapy, when prescribed empirically, is considered acceptable when it reliably achieves, or preferably surpass, 90% cure rates. Currently, only quadruple therapies (with or without bismuth) and generally lasting 14 days, accomplish this goal in first- and second-line therapies. A non-bismuth quadruple concomitant regimen (proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and metronidazole) or a quadruple bismuth-based combination (proton pump inhibitor, bismuth, tetracycline, and metronidazole), are recommended as first-line regimens. Rescue therapies after eradication failure and management of H. pylori infection in peptic ulcer disease were also reviewed.

Evaluating treatments with rifabutin and amoxicillin for eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection in adults: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Helicobacter pylori causes dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and gastric malignancies. Treatments for Helicobacter pylori are mostly empirical depending on regional antibiotic resistances and the patient's history and less frequently susceptibility guided. Helicobacter pylori has a low resistance to rifabutin and has been proposed as an alternative for third-line treatment and beyond but recently has also gained attention for use as first- and second-line treatment.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors systematically searched medical databases in order to present the current eradication rates for any treatment based on the two antibiotics, rifabutin and amoxicillin with a potent acid inhibitor. They also assessed the safety and tolerance of all the relative regimens.

EXPERT OPINION

Treatment with a rifabutin- and amoxicillin-containing regimen is a valuable option when treating difficult to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infections. Its efficacy is overall 71.4%, and it is not influenced by previous antibiotics, gender, smoking habits, and age. Its results were better when used as a first- or second-line treatment. In third-line therapy and beyond, eradication rates are lower. Adverse effects of all rifabutin regimens occurred in 23% of patients and were mostly mild with bone marrow suppression being very low and reversible.

Rifabutin triple therapy for first-line and rescue treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Due to the increasing resistance of Helicobacter pylori, there is a need for novel antibiotic treatment protocols. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to determine the effectiveness and safety of rifabutin triple therapy for H. pylori infection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of prospective clinical trials with a treatment arm consisting of proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, and rifabutin and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Thirty-three prospective studies including 44 datasets were identified. Meta-analysis of four RCTs for rescue treatment found no difference between treatment groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.437-1.791, I²  = 68.1%, P = 0.733). Only one RCT compared rifabutin therapy with control for first-line treatment of H. pylori infection (OR 3.78, 95% CI 2.44-5.87, P < 0.0001). Treatment was more likely to be successful in Asian versus non-Asian populations (81.0% vs 72.4%, P = 0.001) and when daily amoxicillin dose was ≥ 3000 mg or proton pump inhibitor dose was ≥ 80 mg or treatment duration was 14 days (80.6% vs 66.0%, P = 0.0001). The overall event rate for adverse effects was 24.8% (729/2937) (95% CI 0.23-0.26), and the pooled OR for adverse effects in the treatment versus control group was 0.93 (95% CI 0.50-1.75) (I²  = 79.76, P = 0.82).

CONCLUSION

Evidence for the effectiveness of rifabutin for the first-line treatment of H. pylori infection in adults is limited, and studies comparing rifabutin with conventional first-line treatments are lacking.

Rifabutin for the Treatment of Helicobacter Pylori Infection: A Review

Nowadays, apart from having to know first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens well, we must also be prepared to face treatment failures. The aim of this review is to summarize the role of rifabutin in the management of H. pylori infection. Bibliographical searches were performed in PubMed. Data on resistance and efficacy of rifabutin-containing regimens on H. pylori eradication were meta-analyzed. Mean H. pylori rifabutin resistance rate (39 studies, including 9721 patients) was 0.13%; when studies only including patients naïve to H. pylori eradication treatment were considered, this figure was even lower (0.07%). Mean H. pylori eradication rate (by intention-to-treat) with rifabutin-containing regimens (3052 patients) was 73%. Respective cure rates for second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-line therapies, were 79%, 69%, 69% and 72%. Most studies administered rifabutin 300 mg/day, which seemed to be more effective than 150 mg/day. The ideal length of treatment remains unclear, but 10–12-day regimens are generally recommended. Adverse events to rifabutin treatment in H. pylori studies were relatively infrequent (15%), and severe adverse events were exceptional (myelotoxicity was the most significant, although always reversible). In summary, rifabutin-containing therapy represents an encouraging strategy generally restricted, at present, to patients where previous (usually multiple) eradication regimens have failed.

Empirical or susceptibility-guided treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection? A comprehensive review

Although susceptibility-guided therapy is frequently recommended for Helicobacter pylori infection, the evidence available to date supporting this strategy is limited. The aim of the present article is to review the advantages and limitations of the susceptibility-guided and the empirical strategies to treat this infection. We performed a bibliographic search to identify studies investigating H. pylori susceptibility-guided therapy. Culture is not the only way to assess antibiotic resistance, as different polymerase chain reaction-based approaches have been developed as alternative methods. For detecting H. pylori antimicrobial resistance, a molecular approach based on a stool sample might enable more convenient, time-saving methods. Unfortunately, the antimicrobial susceptibility cannot be obtained in all cases. Furthermore, antibiotic susceptibility testing in clinical practice yields useful information only for a few antibiotics: clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones. In addition, susceptibility towards clarithromycin and metronidazole in vitro does not necessarily lead to eradication in vivo. In the case of H. pylori therapy failure, we should not re-administer any of the antibiotics against which H. pylori has probably become resistant. Our updated meta-analysis showed that susceptibility-guided treatment is not better than empirical treatment of H. pylori infection in first-line therapy if the most updated quadruple regimens are empirically prescribed, and similar efficacy results were also demonstrated with the two strategies for second-line therapy. Cumulative H. pylori eradication rate with several successive rescue therapies empirically prescribed reaches almost 100%. Finally, the studies that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the susceptibility-guided treatment have achieved contradictory results. In summary, we can conclude that the evidence is too limited to support the generalized use of susceptibility-guided therapy for H. pylori treatment in routine clinical practice, either as first-line or as rescue treatment. Nevertheless, it would be recommended that susceptibility tests are performed routinely, even before prescribing first-line treatment, in specialized centers with an interest in H. pylori management.