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

Comparison of the Efficacy of Two-Week Vonoprazan Versus Lansoprazole-Based Quadruple Sequential Antibiotic Therapy in Eradicating Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Non-randomized Clinical Trial

AIM

The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori is escalating in developing countries, exacerbated by unjustified antibiotic usage, which leads to increased resistance. This trend has been notably amplified since the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the effectiveness of existing eradication regimens has been compromised. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of two weeks of vonoprazan-based quadruple sequential therapy and lansoprazole-based quadruple sequential therapy in treating H. pylori infection.  Methods: A non-randomized clinical trial was conducted over 18 months at the Department of Gastroenterology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan. It included patients presenting with dyspepsia, as defined by the Rome IV criteria, and who tested positive on the urea breath test. Patients were divided into two groups, i.e., Group A and Group B. Group A patients received lansoprazole 30 mg + amoxicillin + tinidazole + tab. colloidal bismuth subcitrate for the first seven days, followed by lansoprazole + levofloxacin + azithromycin + colloidal bismuth subcitrate. Group B patients received vonoprazan + amoxicillin + tinidazole + colloidal bismuth subcitrate for the first seven days, followed by vonoprazan + levofloxacin + azithromycin + colloidal bismuth subcitrate. Both regimes continued for 14 days. Four weeks after 14 days of the treatment, an early morning urea breath test was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the treatment. Patients were scheduled for follow-up visits at seven and 14 days post-treatment initiation to record adverse events and assess compliance with the treatment regimen. Patients who lost the follow-up and remained non-compliant to the medications were excluded from the final data analysis as per standard protocols of the per-protocol analysis.  Results: A total of 252 patients were included. In Group A and Group B, 6/126 (4.76%) and 8/126 (6.35%) of the patients were lost to follow-up, respectively. The non-compliance rate in Group A was 5/126 (3.97%), compared to Group B with 3/126 (2.38%). Finally, the per-protocol analysis of the results included 115 patients in each group. Baseline characteristics, including demographics, lifestyle, and clinical factors, were comparable between groups with p-values of 0.138 for age, 0.356 for gender, 0.126 for BMI, 0.495 for residence, 0.500 for water source, 0.866 for meal habit, 0.863 for smoking, 0.188 for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, 0.145 for proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, 0.213 for antibiotics, and 0.456 for treatment history. Both treatments effectively eradicated H. pylori, as determined by a negative urea breath test at four weeks post-treatment, with Group B showing a higher eradication rate of 96.5% compared to 92.2% in Group A, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.153). There was no difference in adverse effects in both treatment groups (p-value > 0.05).  Conclusion: The study found that while the vonoprazan-based regime exhibited a slightly higher eradication rate of H. pylori compared to lansoprazole, the difference was not statistically significant. It was concluded that both regimens demonstrated comparable efficacy and similar profiles of adverse effects in treating H. pylori infection.

High-dose dual therapy versus culture-based susceptibility-guided therapy as a rescue regimen for Helicobacter pylori infection: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Although the Maastricht VI/Florence consensus report recommended high-dose proton pump inhibitor-amoxicillin dual therapy as possible rescue therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, clinical evidence of its efficacy was lacking.

Objectives

To compare the efficacy, safety, patient compliance, and cost between high-dose dual therapy (HDDT) and culture-based susceptibility-guided therapy (CB-SGT) as a rescue regimen for H. pylori infection.

Design

A single-center, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Methods

In all, 146 patients with a history of eradication failure were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive HDDT or CB-SGT. HDDT consisted of esomeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 750 mg, both given four times per day (qid). CB-SGT consisted of esomeprazole 20 mg twice daily (bid), amoxicillin 1000 mg bid plus clarithromycin 500 mg bid, metronidazole 400 mg bid, or levofloxacin 500 mg daily (qd) for sensitive patients, in that order. For patients with triple resistance, a bismuth-containing regimen with a high dose of metronidazole was chosen, including esomeprazole 20 mg bid, bismuth 220 mg bid, amoxicillin 1000 mg bid, and metronidazole 400 mg qid. All regimens were given for 14 days.

Results

The eradication H. pylori rates achieved with HDDT in the intention-to-treat (ITT), per-protocol, and modified ITT analyses were all 84.9% [62/73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 76.5-93.9%], compared with 83.6% (61/73, 95% CI: 74.9-92.3%), 84.7% (61/72, 95% CI: 76.2-93.2%), and 84.7% (61/72, 95% CI: 76.2-93.2%) with CB-SGT, respectively. For patients with CYP2C19 polymorphisms of intermediate/poor metabolizers, the eradication rates of HDDT and CB-SGT were 90.70% (39/43, 95% CI: 77.86-97.41%) and 84.21% (32/38, 95% CI: 68.75-93.98%), respectively. The difference between groups was 6.49% (95% CI: -8.00% to 20.97%), and the non-inferiority p value was 0.0128. For patients with a treatment interval of more than 3 months, the eradication rates of the two regimens reached 88.71% (95% CI: 78.11-95.34%) and 71.97% (95% CI: 70.02-90.64%). The difference between groups was 6.74% (95% CI: -5.71% to 19.20%), with a non-inferiority p value of 0.0042. Patient adherence was high in both groups. The HDDT had a lower cost and rate of side effects (p < 0.001) compared with CB-SGT.

Conclusions

HDDT can reach an eradication rate of 85% in treatment-experienced patients of H. pylori infection and 91% in patients with CYP2C19 polymorphisms of intermediate/poor metabolizers, with good compliance, lower side effects and costs, and less use of antibiotics. In conclusion, HDDT offers an effective rescue regimen for H. pylori infection.

Registration

This clinical trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trail Registry (trail registration number: ChiCTR1900025044).

Quadruple therapies are superior to standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori first-line eradication in Chile

INTRODUCTION

Helicobacter pylori infection affects approximately 70% of the Chilean population. It is a public health problem whose eradication treatment is part of the explicit health guarantees in Chile.

OBJECTIVES

Characterize the most widely used H. pylori first-line eradication therapies in our environment and evaluate their efficacy.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was carried out where, in patients with certified H. pylori infection, the eradication therapy indicated by the treating physician, its efficacy, adherence and adverse effects, in addition to the eradication certification method used, were evaluated.

RESULTS

242 patients and 4 main therapies were analyzed: standard triple therapy, dual therapy, concomitant therapy, and bismuth quadruple therapy. Eradication rates of 81.9% (95% CI 74.44-87.63), 88.5% (95% CI 73.13-95.67), 93.7% (95% CI 78.07-98.44) and 97.6% (95% CI 84.81-99.67) were observed respectively, with concomitant therapy (RR: 1.14; 95% CI 1.01-1.29; p=.028) and quadruple therapy with bismuth (RR: 1.19; 95% CI 1.09-1.31; p<.001) being significantly more effective than standard triple therapy. Regarding the rate of reported adverse effects, it was 58.5% (95% CI 50.66-65.92), 35.4% (95% CI 24.6-48.11), 22.9% (95% CI 81-37.14) and 63.4% (95% CI 47.8-76.64), having the dual and concomitant therapy significantly fewer adverse effects compared with standard therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Quadruple therapies are superior to standard triple therapy and should be considered as first-line treatment in Chile. Dual therapy is promising. More studies will be required to determine which therapies are most cost-effective.

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.

Tailored Helicobacter pylori eradication based on prior intake of macrolide antibiotics allows the use of triple therapy with optimal results in an area with high clarithromycin resistance

BACKGROUND

the previous intake of macrolide antibiotics is associated with a failure to eradicate Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) with clarithromycin-containing regimens. However, the standard triple therapy achieves eradication rates of over 90% in patients without a previous use of macrolides in our health area. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an H. pylori eradication strategy based on the intake of macrolides by the patient during the previous years.

METHODS

one hundred and sixty-nine patients with H. pylori infection were prospectively included in the study. The electronic medical record of each patient was reviewed at the time of inclusion. Depending on their previous intake of macrolides, patients were assigned to one of two eradication regimens: group A) patients without a previous intake of macrolides received an optimized triple therapy for 14 days; and group B) patients with a previous intake of macrolides received bismuth quadruple therapy for ten days.

RESULTS

ninety-one patients (53.84%) without a previous intake of macrolides received an optimized triple therapy (group A) and 78 patients (46.15%) with a previous intake of macrolides received bismuth quadruple therapy (group B). In group A, the H. pylori eradication rates were 90.11% in the intention-to-treat and 95.35% in the per-protocol analysis. In group B, the H. pylori eradication rates were 85.89% in the intention-to-treat and 98.5% in the per-protocol analysis. The overall eradication rates obtained using this strategy were 88.16% (95% CI: 82.32-92.02%) in the intention-to-treat and 96.75% (95% CI: 92.59-98.94%) in the per-protocol analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

an H. pylori eradication strategy based on the intake of macrolides during the previous years achieves overall eradication rates close to 90% and allows the use of standard triple therapy in more than half of the patients from a health area with a high level of clarithromycin resistance.