Sequential therapy versus standard triple-drug therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: result of the HPFEZ randomised study

Sequential versus Standard Triple Therapy for First-Line Helicobacter pylori Eradication: An Update

BACKGROUND

non-bismuth sequential therapy (SEQ) was suggested as a first-line anti-Helicobacter pylori treatment alternative to standard triple therapy (STT).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of 10-day SEQ vs. STT (of at least 7 days) using bibliographical searches up to July 2021, including treatment-naïve adult or children. The intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rate and the risk difference (RD) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 69 RCTs were evaluated, including 19,657 patients (9486 in SEQ; 10,171 in STT). Overall, SEQ was significantly more effective than STT (82% vs. 75%; RD 0.08; p < 0.001). The results were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 68%), and 38 studies did not demonstrate differences between therapies. Subgroup analyses suggested that patients with clarithromycin resistance only and all geographical areas but South America could benefit more from SEQ. Both therapies have evolved over the years, showing similar results when STT lasted 14 days; however, a tendency toward lower SEQ efficacy was noted from 2010 onwards.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to 2010, SEQ was significantly more effective than STT, notably when 7-day STT was prescribed. A tendency toward lower differences between SEQ and STT has been noted, especially when using 10-day STT. None of the therapies achieved an optimal efficacy and therefore cannot be recommended as a valid first-line H. pylori treatment.

Effectiveness of eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication depends on the treatment protocol. This study investigates the H. pylori eradication rate in Africa using the best available evidence from databases.

METHODS

Databases were searched and results were pooled together. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I² test statistics. Stata version 13 software was employed to compute the pooled eradication rate. In the subgroup analysis comparison, the finding is considered significant when the confidence intervals did not overlap.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies from 9 African countries with a total population of 2,163 were included in this study. The pooled eradication rate of H. pylori was 79% (95% CI: 75%-82%), heterogeneity (I² = 93.02%). In the subgroup analysis by study design, a higher eradication rate was reported from observational studies (85%, 95% CI: 79%-90%), compared to randomized control trials (77%, 95% CI: 73%-82%); by the duration of therapy, higher eradication rate was reported in 10-days regimen (88%, 95% CI: 84%-92%), compared to 7-days regimen (66%, 95% CI: 55%-77%); by country, the highest eradication rate was found in Ethiopia (90%; 95% CI: 87%-93%) and the lowest eradication rate was reported in Ivory Coast (22.3%; 95% CI:15%-29%); by type of H. pylori test, the highest eradication rate was reported when rapid urease test coupled with histology (88%, 95% CI: 77%-96%), and the lowest eradication rate was reported with histology alone (22.3%; 95% CI:15%-29%). Significant heterogeneity was observed with pooled prevalence (I² = 93.02%, P < 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

In Africa, the first-line therapy showed a variable eradication rate for H. pylori. This study demonstrates the necessity to optimize current H. pylori treatment regimens in each country, taking into account the antibiotic susceptibility. Future RCT studies with standardized regimens are warranted.

Comparative Effectiveness of Multiple Different First-Line Treatment Regimens for Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A number of double, triple, and quadruple therapies have been proposed as first-line empiric treatments for Helicobacter pylori infection. However, knowledge of their worldwide and regional comparative efficacy is lacking. We examined the comparative effectiveness of all empirically used first-line regimens tested against standard triple treatment using a network meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Data extracted from eligible randomized controlled trials were entered into a Bayesian network meta-analysis to investigate the comparative efficacy of H pylori infection empiric first-line regimens and to explore their effectiveness rank order. The ranking probability for each regimen was evaluated by means of surfaces under cumulative ranking values.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight eligible randomized controlled trials were included, giving a total of 92 paired comparisons with 22,975 patients randomized to 8 first-line regimens. The overall results showed that only vonoprazan triple therapy and reverse hybrid therapy achieved cure rates of >90%. Levofloxacin triple therapy performed best in Western countries (eradication rate 88.5%). The comparative effectiveness ranking showed that vonoprazan triple therapy had the best results, whereas standard triple therapy was the least efficacious regimen (surfaces under cumulative ranking 92.4% vs 4.7% respectively; odds ratio, 3.80; 95% credible interval, 1.62-8.94).

CONCLUSIONS

For first-line empiric treatment of H pylori infection, vonoprazan triple therapy and reverse hybrid therapy achieved high eradication rates of >90%. Levofloxacin triple therapy achieved the highest eradication rates in Western countries. Standard triple therapy was the least efficacious regimen in this network meta-analysis.

Evidence based guidelines for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in Korea 2020

Helicobacter pylori infection is one of the most common infectious diseases worldwide. H. pylori is responsible for substantial gastrointestinal morbidity with a high disease burden. Since the revision of the H. pylori Clinical Practice Guidelines in 2013 in Korea, the eradication rate of H. pylori has gradually decreased with the use of a clarithromycin based triple therapy. According to a nationwide randomized controlled study by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research released in 2018, the intention-to-treat eradication rate was only 63.9%, which was mostly due to increased antimicrobial resistance to clarithromycin. The clinical practice guidelines for treatment of H. pylori were updated based on evidence-based medicine from a meta-analysis conducted on a target group receiving the latest level of eradication therapy. The draft recommendations developed based on the meta-analysis were finalized after expert consensus on three recommendations regarding the indication for treatment and eight recommendations on the treatment itself. These guidelines were designed to provide clinical evidence for the treatment of H. pylori to patients, nurses, medical school students, policymakers, and clinicians. These may differ from current medical insurance standards, and will be revised if more evidence emerges in the future.

Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection in Korea 2020

Helicobacter pylori infection is one of the most common infectious diseases worldwide. Although the prevalence of H. pylori is gradually decreasing, approximately half of the world&#039;s population still becomes infected with this disease. H. pylori is responsible for substantial gastrointestinal morbidity worldwide, with a high disease burden. It is the most common cause of gastric and duodenal ulcers and gastric cancer. Since the revision of the H. pylori clinical practice guidelines in 2013 in Korea, the eradication rate of H. pylori has gradually decreased with the use of a clarithromycin-based triple therapy for 7 days. According to a nationwide randomized controlled study conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research released in 2018, the intention-to-treat eradication rate was only 63.9%, which was mostly due to increased antimicrobial resistance, especially from clarithromycin. The clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori were updated according to evidence-based medicine from a meta-analysis conducted on a target group receiving the latest level of eradication therapy. The draft recommendations developed based on the meta-analysis were finalized after an expert consensus on three recommendations regarding the indication for treatment and eight recommendations for the treatment itself. These guidelines were designed to provide clinical evidence for the treatment (including primary care treatment) of H. pylori infection to patients, nurses, medical school students, policymakers, and clinicians. These may differ from current medical insurance standards and will be revised if more evidence emerges in the future.

Evidence-based Guidelines for the Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection in Korea: 2020 Revised Edition

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is one of the most common infectious diseases worldwide. Although its incidence is gradually decreasing, about half of the world's population still get infected. H. pylori infection is responsible for substantial gastrointestinal morbidity worldwide. It is the most common cause of gastric and duodenal ulcers as well as gastric cancer. Since the revision of the H. pylori Clinical Practice Guidelines in 2013, the eradication rate of H. pylori has gradually decreased with the use of classical triple therapy, wherein amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and proton pump inhibitors are administered, for 7 days. According to a nationwide randomized controlled study conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research released in 2018, the intention-to-treat eradication rate was only 63.9%, which was due to increased antimicrobial resistance induced by the use of antibiotics, especially clarithromycin. The update of clinical practice guideline for treatment of H. pylori was developed based on evidence-based medicine by conducting a meta-analysis. The draft recommendations were finalized after expert consensus on three recommendations regarding the indication for treatment and eight recommendations on the treatment itself. These guidelines are designed to provide patients, nurses, medical school students, policymakers, and clinicians with clinical evidence to guide primary care and treatment of H. pylori infection. These may differ from current medical insurance standards and will be revised further, if necessary, based on research-based evidence.

Non-Bismuth Quadruple Therapy, Sequential Therapy or High-Dose Esomeprazole and Amoxicillin Dual Therapy for First-Line Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Prospective Randomized Study

Aim: The study aims were to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of non-bismuth quadruple therapy with sequential therapy and dual therapy with high dose esomeprazole and amoxicillin as an empirical first-line approach to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection.

Patients and methods: Prospective randomized trial included 393 patients infected with H. pylori naïve to eradication therapy, randomized to receive a 10-day non-bismuth quadruple or concomitant (CT) therapy, 10-day sequential therapy (SQ), or 14-day high-dose esomeprazole and amoxicillin (BT). Treatment outcome was assessed by C13-urea breath test at least six weeks after therapy. Adverse events and compliance were assessed with questionnaires and residual medication count.

Results: The baseline demographic clinical and endoscopic characteristics were similar among the three groups. The intention to treat (ITT) analysis was performed in 130, 132, and 131 patients in the BT, SQ, and CT groups, respectively. The eradication rates in ITT were 64.6%, 83.1%, and 92.3%, respectively, in the BT, SQ and CT groups (p = 0.0001). The eradication rates per protocol were 67.7%, 88.5%, and 95.3% (p = 0.0001), respectively, in the BT, SQ, and CT groups. The CT and SQ groups were higher than the BT group (p = 0,0001) but no significant results were seen in the eradication rate between CT and SQ, both in PP analysis and in ITT analysis (p = 0.09). The prevalence of the side effects following the non-bismuth quadruple therapy was 38.2%, significantly higher (p = 0.001) than the BT group (13.80%) and SQ group (22%). There were no significant differences in compliance among the three therapies (p = 0.16).

Conclusion: This study found that non-bismuth quadruple therapy yielded a higher H. pylori eradication rate over sequential regimen as a first-line treatment in Morocco, with no statistical difference between the two protocols studied, while the eradication rate of dual high-dose of esomeprazole and amoxicillin did not exceed 60%. All three therapy schemes showed excellent compliance. However, the prevalence of side events was more important and significantly higher with non-bismuth quadruple therapy.

Clarithromycin Versus Metronidazole in First-Line Helicobacter Pylori Triple Eradication Therapy Based on Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents: Meta-Analysis

Background: International treatment guidelines for Helicobacter pylori infection recommend a proton pump inhibitor (PPI)/amoxicillin/clarithromycin (CAM) regimen (PAC) or PPI/amoxicillin/metronidazole (MNZ) regimen (PAM) as first-line therapy based on culture and sensitivity testing. As incidence rates of antimicrobial agent-resistant strains are changing year by year, it is important to reevaluate the efficacy of eradication regimens. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PAC and PAM based on different locations categorized by the reported incidence of CAM- and MNZ-resistant strains. Methods: Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing eradication rates between PAC and PAM first-line treatment up to December 2018 were included. We divided RCTs into four groups based on resistance to CAM (< 15% or ≥ 15%) and MNZ (< 15% or ≥ 15%). Results: A total of 27 studies (4825 patients) were included. Overall eradication rates between PAC and PAM were similar (74.8% and 72.5%, relative risk (RR): 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91–1.39, P = 0.27) in the intention-to-treat analysis. In areas with low MNZ- and high CAM-resistance rates, PAM had a significantly higher eradication rate than PAC (92.5% vs. 70.8%, RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.13–0.68). In areas with high MNZ- and low CAM-resistance rates, the eradication rate with PAC was only 72.9%. Conclusions: Overall eradication rates with PAC and PAM were equivalent worldwide. In low MNZ-resistance areas, PAM may be recommended as first-line therapy. However, the efficacy of PAC may be insufficient, irrespective of susceptibility to CAM.

Infections with Helicobacter pylori and challenges encountered in Africa

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the causative agent of gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, mucosa associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma and gastric cancer (GC). While this bacterium infects 50% of the world’s population, in Africa its prevalence reach as high as 80% as the infection is acquired during childhood. Risk factors for H. pylori acquisition have been reported to be mainly due to overcrowding, to have infected siblings or parent and to unsafe water sources. Despite this high H. pylori prevalence there still does not exist an African guideline, equivalent to the Maastricht V/Florence Consensus Report of the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group for the management of this infection. In this continent, although there is a paucity of epidemiologic data, a contrast between the high prevalence of H. pylori infection and the low incidence of GC has been reported. This phenomenon is the so-called “African Enigma” and it has been hypothesized that it could be explained by environmental, dietary and genetic factors. A heterogeneity of data both on diagnosis and on therapy have been published. In this context, it is evident that in several African countries the increasing rate of bacterial resistance, mainly to metronidazole and clarithromycin, requires continental guidelines to recommend the appropriate management of H. pylori. The aim of this manuscript is to review current literature on H. pylori infection in Africa, in terms of prevalence, risk factors, impact on human health, treatment and challenges encountered so as to proffer possible solutions to reduce H. pylori transmission in this continent.

Sequential Therapy or Standard Triple Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Infection: An Updated Systematic Review

The effectiveness of standard triple therapy (STT) for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori has decreased recently. Sequential therapy (SQT) is a new regimen proposed to address this problem. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of SQT versus STT for H. pylori eradication. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases up to July 2014. The risk ratios (RRs) of eradication rate were pooled, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Thirty-six randomized clinical trials including a total of 10,316 patients met the inclusion criteria. The RR for eradication of H. pylori with SQT compared with STT was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.09-1.17), the eradication rates were 84.1% and 75.1%, respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between trial results (I = 73%; P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses showed that SQT was superior to both 7- and 10-day STT, but not significantly better than 14-day STT. This superiority existed when patients were treated with either metronidazole or tinidazole. Patients with single clarithromycin-resistant strain showed a greater benefit of SQT over STT (eradication rates 80.9% vs. 40.7%), RR = 1.98 (95% CI: 1.33-2.94). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of the risk of adverse effects. In conclusion, SQT is more efficacious than STT (7 days and 10 days) in the eradication of HP, but the pooled rate seemed suboptimal. Further research is needed to develop more effective therapeutic approaches. Surveillance of resistance rates should be performed to guide treatment.

Helicobacter pylori Primary Antibiotic Resistance in 2015 in Morocco: A Phenotypic and Genotypic Prospective and Multicenter Study

Knowledge of local antibiotic resistance is crucial to adaption of the choice of effective empirical first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate, for the first time in Morocco, the prevalence of the primary resistance of H. pylori to clarithromycin, metronidazole, amoxicillin, levofloxacin, tetracycline, and rifamycin. We conducted a 1-year prospective study (2015), including 255 Moroccan patients referred for gastro-duodenal endoscopy to two hospitals of Rabat (Morocco) and never previously treated for H. pylori infection. Three gastric biopsies were collected: one for histology, one for culture, and one for molecular detection of H. pylori and the mutations in 23S rRNA genes that confer resistance to clarithromycin. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed on isolated strains by Etest and disk diffusion methods. One hundred seventy-seven patients were infected (69.4%). The prevalence of primary resistances of H. pylori to clarithromycin was 29%, 40% to metronidazole, 0% to amoxicillin, tetracycline, and rifamycin, and 11% to levofloxacin. Only four isolates (2%) were resistant to both clarithromycin and metronidazole. The high level of primary clarithromycin resistance in the H. pylori strains infecting the Moroccan population leads us to recommend the abandonment of the standard clarithromycin-based triple therapy as a first-line treatment in Morocco and to prefer a concomitant quadruple therapy.

Sequential versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

Non-bismuth quadruple sequential therapy (SEQ) comprising a first induction phase with a dual regimen of amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for five days followed by a triple regimen phase with a PPI, clarithromycin and metronidazole for another five days, has been suggested as a new first-line treatment option to replace the standard triple therapy (STT) comprising a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), clarithromycin and amoxicillin, in which eradication proportions have declined to disappointing levels.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of a SEQ regimen with STT for the eradication of H. pylori infection, and to compare the incidence of adverse effects associated with both STT and SEQ H. pylori eradication therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted bibliographical searches in electronic databases, and handsearched abstracts from Congresses up to April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 10-day SEQ and STT (of at least seven days) for the eradication of H. pylori. Participants were adults and children diagnosed as positive for H. pylori infection and naïve to H. pylori treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a pre-piloted, tabular summary to collect demographic and medical information of included study participants as well as therapeutic data and information related to the diagnosis and confirmatory tests.We evaluated the difference in intention-to-treat eradication between SEQ and STT regimens across studies, and assessed sources of the heterogeneity of this risk difference (RD) using subgroup analyses.We evaluated the quality of the evidence following Cochrane standards, and summarised it using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs with a total of 12,284 participants (6042 in SEQ and 6242 in STT). The overall analysis showed that SEQ was significantly more effective than STT (82% vs 75% in the intention-to-treat analysis; RD 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.11; P < 0.001, moderate-quality evidence). Results were highly heterogeneous (I² = 75%), and 20 studies did not demonstrate differences between therapies.Reporting by geographic region (RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12; studies = 44; I² = 75%, based on low-quality evidence) showed that differences between SEQ and STT were greater in Europe (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.19) when compared to Asia, Africa or South America. European studies also showed a tendency towards better efficacy with SEQ; however, this tendency was reversed in 33% of the Asian studies. Africa reported the closest risk difference (RD 0.14 , 95% 0.07 to 0.22) to Europe among studied regions, but confidence intervals were wider and therefore the quality of the evidence showing SEQ to be superior to STT was reduced for this region.Based on high-quality evidence, subgroup analyses showed that SEQ and STT therapies were equivalent when STT lasted for 14 days. Although, overall, the mean eradication proportion with SEQ was over 80%, we noted a tendency towards a lower average effect with this regimen in the more recent studies (2008 and after); weighted linear regression showed that the efficacies of both regimens evolved differently over the years, having a higher reduction in the efficacy of SEQ (-1.72% yearly) than in STT (-0.9% yearly). In these more recent studies (2008 and after) we were also unable to detect the superiority of SEQ over STT when STT was given for 10 days.Based on very low-quality evidence, subgroup analyses on antibiotic resistance showed that the widest difference in efficacy between SEQ and STT was in the subgroup analysis based on clarithromycin-resistant participants, in which SEQ reached a 75% average efficacy versus 43% with STT.Reporting on adverse events (AEs) (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; participants = 8103; studies = 27; I² = 26%, based on high-quality evidence) showed no significant differences between SEQ and STT (20.4% vs 19.5%, respectively) and results were homogeneous.The quality of the studies was limited due to a lack of systematic reporting of the factors affecting risk of bias. Although randomisation was reported, its methodology (e.g. algorithms, number of blocks) was not specified in several studies. Additionally, the other 'Risk of bias' domains (such as allocation concealment of the sequence randomisation, or blinding during either performance or outcome assessment) were also unreported.However, subgroup analyses as well as sensitivity analyses or funnel plots indicated that treatment outcomes were not influenced by the quality of the included studies. On the other hand, we rated 'length of STT' and AEs for the main outcome as high-quality according to GRADE classification; but we downgraded 'publication date' quality to moderate, and 'geographic region' and 'antibiotic resistance' to low- and very low-quality, respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicates that prior to 2008 SEQ was more effective than STT, especially when STT was given for only seven days. Nevertheless, the apparent advantage of sequential treatment has decreased over time, and more recent studies do not show SEQ to have a higher efficacy versus STT when STT is given for 10 days.Based on the results of this meta-analysis, although SEQ offers an advantage when compared with STT, it cannot be presented as a valid alternative, given that neither SEQ nor STT regimens achieved optimal efficacy ( ≥ 90% eradication rate).

Current Paradigm and Future Directions for Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection

OPINION STATEMENT

Once easily eradicated with triple or quadruple therapy, Helicobacter pylori infection has become increasingly resistant to traditional first-line treatment regimens because of emerging antibiotic resistance coupled with poor patient compliance with completing the treatment course. Given decreasing H. pylori eradication rates, there is considerable interest in evaluating new antibiotic combinations and regimens, the addition of probiotics, and the development of new paradigms such as concomitant, sequential, and hybrid medication dosing strategies. Unfortunately, efforts thus far have not universally improved treatment responses, as promising early results were often not extrapolated to wider populations. This is probably due largely to regional variation in H. pylori resistance patterns. Ideally, the standard of care should be dictated by knowledge of local H. pylori antimicrobial resistance patterns and clinical success rates rather than by empiric extrapolation from the literature. Unfortunately, such knowledge is usually lacking in the USA. The expectation of a first-line regimen is a minimum 80 % eradication rate in the local population. Standard triple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), amoxicillin, and clarithromycin may still be effective in some areas; however, in populations with high clarithromycin resistance, quadruple therapy with a metronidazole-based regimen may be a better choice, and concomitant, sequential, or hybrid dosing schedules should also be considered as possible first-line choices. Second- and third-line treatment regimens consist of levofloxacin-based and rifabutin-based therapies, respectively. Further work should be directed at establishing local resistance patterns and eradication rates, developing H. pylori-specific antibiotics, and starting culture-guided treatment programs. Ultimately, the development of an H. pylori vaccine would bypass any issues with antibiotic resistance by preventing the acquisition of infection altogether.

Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection 2014

This review summarizes important studies regarding H.pylori therapy published from April 2013 to April 2014. The main themes that emerge are assessing the efficacy of standard triple therapy, as well as exploring new first-line treatments, predominantly optimized triple therapies and non-bismuth quadruple schemes. Regarding newer non-bismuth quadruple regimens, the compliance and tolerance seem to be similar for sequential and concomitant regimens. Notably, no study yet has demonstrated a clear statistical superiority for either, and a systematic review and meta-analysis may be warranted. Other studies examined the role of levofloxacin and bismuth based therapies in H. pylori eradication. The efficacy of bismuth as a second-line after sequential therapy was particularly noteworthy. Levofloxacin-based therapies also appear to be useful and versatile as part of different antibiotic combinations and in first-, second-, and third-line therapies. The emerging problem of quinolone resistance remains a worry. Individualized therapy, based on factors such as antimicrobial information, resistance data, and CYP2C19 metabolism, may well be the most notable future trend to emerge this year.

How antibiotic resistances could change Helicobacter pylori treatment: A matter of geography?

Therapeutic management of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) remains an unsolved issue. Indeed, no therapeutic regimen is able to cure the infection in all treated patients, and in many the infection persists despite the administration of several consecutive standard therapies. Although antibiotic resistance reports describe alarming results, the outcome of therapeutic regimens does not seem to parallel this scenario in most cases, since a successful performance is often reached in more than 80% of cases. However, the phenomenon of increasing antibiotic resistance is being closely studied, and the results show controversial aspects even in the same geographic area. For the continents of Europe, America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania, minimal and maximal values of resistance to the main antibiotics (clarithromycin, amoxicillin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin) feature wide ranges in different countries. The real enigma is therefore linked to the several different therapeutic regimens, which show results that often do not parallel the in vitro findings even in the same areas. A first aspect to be emphasized is that some regimens are limited by their use in very small geographic districts. Moreover, not all therapeutic trials have considered bacterial and host factors affecting the therapeutic outcome. The additional use of probiotics may help to reduce adverse events, but their therapeutic impact is doubtful. In conclusion, the “ideal therapy”, paradoxically, appears to be a “utopia”, despite the unprecedented volume of studies in the field and the real breakthrough in medical practice made by the discovery and treatment of H. pylori. The ample discrepancies observed in the different areas do not encourage the development of therapeutic guidelines that could be valid worldwide. On these bases, one of the main challenges for the future might be identifying a successful solution to overcome antibiotic resistances. In this context, geography must be considered a relevant matter.

Global eradication rates for Helicobacter pylori infection: systematic review and meta-analysis of sequential therapy

OBJECTIVE

To do a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing sequential therapy for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with pre-existing and new therapies, thus providing a glimpse of eradication success worldwide.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to May 2013; abstract books of major European, American, and Asian gastroenterological meetings.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials in previously untreated adults, in which sequential therapy was compared with a pre-existing or new therapy.

RESULTS

46 randomised controlled trials were reviewed and analysed. 5666 patients were randomised to sequential therapy and 7866 to other (established and new) treatments. The overall eradication rate of sequential therapy was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 82.1% to 86.4%). Sequential therapy was superior to seven day triple therapy (relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.25; I(2)=29.3%; number needed to treat 6, 95% confidence interval 5% to 7%), marginally superior to 10 day triple therapy (1.11, 1.04 to 1.19; I(2)= 67.2%; NNT 10, 7 to 15), but not superior to 14 day triple therapy (1.00, 0.94 to 1.06; I(2)=54.3%), bismuth based therapy (1.01, 0.95 to 1.06; I(2)=21.1%), and non-bismuth based therapy (0.99, 0.94 to 1.05; I(2)=52.3%). Data on eradication according to pre-treatment antimicrobial susceptibility testing were available in eight studies, and sequential therapy was able to eradicate 72.8% (61.6% to 82.8%) of the strains resistant to clarithromycin.

CONCLUSIONS

Eradication rates with pre-existing and new therapies for H pylori are suboptimal. Regional monitoring of resistance rates should help to guide treatment, and new agents for treatment need to be developed.