What is the optimal length of proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapies for H. pylori? A cost-effectiveness analysis

Comparison of efficacy and pharmacoeconomics of two Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens in peptic ulcer disease

Background

Helicobacter pylori, the cause of most peptic ulcer diseases, infects approximately 50% of the population worldwide. Indian data on cost and effectiveness of the standard first-line therapies for H. pylori eradication are scarce. Thus, the present study was aimed at comparing the cost and efficacy of two standard first-line therapies: Regimen I comprising pantoprazole (40 mg) plus amoxicillin (750 mg) plus clarithromycin (500 mg) (PAC) and Regimen II comprising rabeprazole (20 mg) plus amoxicillin (625 mg) plus metronidazole (200 mg) (RAM).

Methodology

This prospective, observational, bottom-up study collected demographic, economic, diagnostic, and therapeutic data from 60 H. pylori-positive patients. The study was carried out for 6 months in the Gastroenterology Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital in Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

Results

Health-care system perspective was used to account for direct costs. Average cost per patient for complete H. pylori eradication was Rs. 10,221 and Rs. 8568 for Regimen I and Regimen II, respectively. Inpatient cost was considerably higher than the outpatient cost. Diagnostic costs ranked first in direct costs, followed by hospitalization costs, medication costs, and finally, physician's office visit cost. Individual patient's costs difference between two regimens was found to be statistically significant. Overall, Regimen I proved to be more efficacious than Regimen II, but Regimen II proved to be more cost-effective than Regimen I. Furthermore, incremental cost-effectiveness analysis revealed additional cost of Rs. 127 per patient if the patient was treated with Regimen I instead of Regimen II.

Conclusion

Our study showed that Regimen II (RAM) was more cost-effective than Regimen I (PAC), but PAC achieved faster H. pylori eradication than RAM. We assume that this study provides local clinical data as to which regimen may be useful in a particular patient. National Level Clinical Trials are required to further ascertain this conclusion.

Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy is controversial, with recommendations ranging from 7 to 14 days. Several systematic reviews have attempted to address this issue but have given conflicting results and limited their analysis to proton pump inhibitor (PPI), two antibiotics (PPI triple) therapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimal duration of multiple H. pylori eradication regimens.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess the relative effectiveness of different durations (7, 10 or 14 days) of a variety of regimens for eradicating H. pylori. The primary outcome was H. pylori persistence. The secondary outcome was adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched up to December 2011 to identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the proceedings of six conferences from 1995 to 2011, dissertations and theses, and grey literature. There were no language restrictions applied to any search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only parallel group RCTs assessing the efficacy of one to two weeks duration of first line H. pylori eradication regimens in adults were eligible. Within each regimen, the same combinations of drugs at the same dose were compared over different durations. Studies with at least two arms comparing 7, 10, or 14 days were eligible. Enrolled participants needed to be diagnosed with at least one positive test for H. pylori on the basis of a rapid urease test (RUT), histology, culture, urea breath test (UBT), or a stool antigen test (HpSA) before treatment. Eligible trials needed to confirm eradication of H. pylori as their primary outcome at least 28 days after completion of eradication treatment. Trials using only serology or a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to determine H. pylori infection or eradication were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study eligibility and data extraction were performed by two independent review authors. Data analyses were performed within each type of intervention, for both primary and secondary outcomes. The relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT)/number needed to harm (NNTH) according to duration of therapy were calculated using the outcomes of H. pylori persistence and adverse events. A random-effects model was used. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were planned a priori.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 75 studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight types of regimens were reported with at least two comparative eligible durations. They included: PPI + two antibiotics triple therapy (n = 59), PPI bismuth-based quadruple therapy (n = 6), PPI + three antibiotics quadruple therapy (n = 1), PPI dual therapy (n = 2), histamine H2-receptor antagonist (H₂RA) bismuth quadruple therapy (n = 3), H₂RA bismuth-based triple therapy (n = 2), H₂RA + two antibiotics triple therapy (n = 3), and bismuth + two antibiotics triple therapy (n = 2). Some studies provided data for more than one regimen or more than two durations.For the PPI triple therapy, 59 studies with five regimens were reported: PPI + clarithromycin + amoxicillin (PCA); PPI + clarithromycin + a nitroimidazole (PCN); PPI + amoxicillin + nitroimidazole (PAN); PPI + amoxicillin + a quinolone (PAQ); and PPI + amoxicillin + a nitrofuran (PANi). Regardless of type and dose of antibiotics, increased duration of PPI triple therapy from 7 to 14 days significantly increased the H. pylori eradication rate (45 studies, 72.9% versus 81.9%), the RR for H. pylori persistence was 0.66 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.74), NNT was 11 (95% CI 9 to 14). Significant effects were seen in the subgroup of PCA (34 studies, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.75; NNT 12, 95% CI 9 to 16); PAN (10 studies, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.86; NNT = 11, 95% CI 8 to 25); and in PAQ (2 studies, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.83; NNT 3, 95% CI 2 to 10); but not in PCN triple therapy (4 studies, RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07). Significantly increased eradication rates were also seen for PPI triple therapy with 10 versus 7 days (24 studies, 79.9% versus 75.7%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; NNT 21, 95% CI 15 to 38) and 14 versus 10 days (12 studies, 84.4% versus 78.5%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.90; NNT 17, 95% CI 11 to 46); especially in the subgroup of PAC for 10 versus 7 days (17 studies, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91) and for 14 versus 10 days (10 studies, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91). A trend towards increased H. pylori eradication rates was seen with increased duration of PCN for 10 versus 7 days, and of PAN for 10 versus 7 days and 14 versus 10 days, though this was not statistical significant. The proportion of patients with adverse events, defined by authors, was marginally significantly increased only between 7 days and 14 days (15.5% versus 19.4%; RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; NNTH 31, 95% CI 18 to 104) but not for other duration comparisons. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment due to adverse events was not significantly different between treatment durations.Only limited data were reported for different durations of regimens other than PPI triple therapy. No significant difference of the eradication rate was seen for all regimens according to different durations except for H₂RA bismuth quadruple therapy, where a significantly higher eradication rate was seen for 14 days versus 7 days, however only one study reported outcome data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the duration of PPI-based triple therapy increases H. pylori eradication rates. For PCA, prolonging treatment duration from 7 to 10 or from 10 to 14 days is associated with a significantly higher eradication rate. The optimal duration of therapy for PCA and PAN is at least 14 days. More data are needed to confirm if there is any benefit of increasing the duration of therapy for PCN therapy. Information is limited for regimens other than PPI triple therapy; more studies are needed to draw meaningful conclusions for optimal duration of other H. pylori eradication regimens.

Update on non-bismuth quadruple (concomitant) therapy for eradication of Helicobacter pylori

BACKGROUND

Traditional standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection (proton pump inhibitor-clarithromycin-amoxicillin) can easily be converted to non-bismuth quadruple (concomitant) therapy by the addition of a nitroimidazole twice daily.

AIM

To critically review evidence on the role of non-bismuth quadruple therapy (proton pump inhibitor-clarithromycin-amoxicillin-nitroimidazole) in the treatment of H. pylori infection.

METHODS

Bibliographical searches were performed in MEDLINE and relevant congresses up to December 2011. We performed a meta-analysis of the studies evaluating the concomitant therapy, and of the randomized controlled trials comparing the concomitant and the standard triple therapy.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of 19 studies (2070 patients) revealed a mean H. pylori cure rate (intention-to-treat) of 88% (95% confidence interval from 85% to 91%) for non-bismuth quadruple therapy. We performed a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled studies comparing the concomitant (481 patients) and the standard triple therapy (503 patients). The former was more effective than the latter: 90% versus 78% (intention-to-treat analysis). Results were homogeneous (I(2) = 0%). The odds ratio for this comparison was 2.36 (95% confidence interval from 1.67 to 3.34). A tendency toward better results with longer treatments (7-10 days versus 3-5 days) has been observed, so it seems reasonable to recommend the length of treatment achieving the highest cure rates (10 days). Clarithromycin resistance may reduce the efficacy of non-bismuth quadruple therapy, although the decrease in eradication rates seems to be far lower than in standard triple therapy. Experience with the non-bismuth quadruple therapy in patients with metronidazole-resistant strains is still very limited.

CONCLUSION

Non-bismuth quadruple (concomitant) therapy appears to be an effective, safe, and well-tolerated alternative to triple therapy and is less complex than sequential therapy. Therefore, this regimen appears well suited for use in settings where the efficacy of triple therapy is unacceptably low.

Review article: non-bismuth quadruple (concomitant) therapy for eradication of Helicobater pylori

BACKGROUND

Traditional standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection (PPI-clarithromycin-amoxicillin) can easily be converted to non-bismuth quadruple (concomitant) therapy by the addition of a nitroimidazole twice daily.

AIM

To critically review evidence on the role of non-bismuth quadruple therapy (PPI-clarithromycin-amoxicillin-nitroimidazole) in the treatment of H. pylori infection.

METHODS

Bibliographical searches were performed in MEDLINE and relevant congresses.

RESULTS

The first randomised comparison of the non-bismuth quadruple therapy and the sequential (PPI-amoxicillin 5days plus PPI-clarithromycin-nitroimidazole 5days) regimens recently concluded that both were similar in terms of efficacy and safety and that the sequential administration protocol may be unnecessarily complex. Several randomised controlled trials (and one meta-analysis) have demonstrated that non-bismuth quadruple therapy is more effective than and is equally well tolerated as standard triple therapy. A meta-analysis of 15 studies (1723 patients) revealed a mean H. pylori cure rate (intention-to-treat) of 90% for non-bismuth quadruple therapy. A tendency towards better results with longer treatments (7-10days vs. 3-5days) has been observed, so it seems reasonable to recommend the length of treatment by achieving maximal cure rates (10days). Clarithromycin resistance may reduce the efficacy of non-bismuth quadruple therapy, although the decrease in eradication rates seems to be far lower than in standard triple therapy. Experience with the non-bismuth quadruple therapy in patients with metronidazole-resistant strains is still very limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-bismuth quadruple (concomitant) therapy appears to be an effective, safe, and well-tolerated alternative to triple therapy and is less complex than sequential therapy. Therefore, this regimen appears well suited for use in settings where the efficacy of triple therapy is unacceptably low.

Cost-effectiveness of six strategies for Helicobacter pylori diagnosis and management in uninvestigated dyspepsia assuming a high resource intensity practice pattern

BACKGROUND

Initial assessment of dyspepsia often includes noninvasive testing for Helicobacter pylori infection. Commercially available tests vary widely in cost and accuracy. Although there is extensive literature on the cost-effectiveness of H. pylori treatment, there is little information comparing the cost-effectiveness of various currently used, noninvasive testing strategies.

METHODS

A Markov simulation was used to calculate cost per symptom-free year and cost per correct diagnosis. Uncertainty in outcomes was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Under the baseline assumptions, cost per symptom-free year was $122 for empiric proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial, and costs for the noninvasive test strategies ranged from $123 (stool antigen) to $129 (IgG/IgA combined serology). Confidence intervals had significant overlap.

CONCLUSIONS

Under our assumptions for how testing for H. pylori infection is employed in United States medical practice, the available noninvasive tests all have similar cost-effectiveness between one another as well as with empiric PPI trial.

Sequential therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a critical review

BACKGROUND

Alternative treatment regimens for standard triple therapy are urgently needed.

AIM

To critically review the evidence on the role of "sequential" regimen for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection.

METHODS

Bibliographical searches were performed in MEDLINE and international congresses.

RESULTS

Several pooled-data analyses and meta-analyses have demonstrated that sequential regimen is more effective than standard triple therapy. Sequential therapy is not affected by bacterial (CagA status, infection density) and host factors (underlying disease, smoking). Clarithromycin resistance seems to be the only factor reducing their efficacy. However, even in these patients, an acceptable >75% eradication rate can be achieved. Unfortunately, almost all the studies have been performed in Italy. Whether it is necessary to provide the drugs sequentially or if the 4 components of sequential therapy can be given concurrently is unclear. Nonbismuth quadruple therapy seems to be an effective and safe alternative to triple therapy and is less complex than sequential therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential therapy is a novel promising treatment approach that deserves consideration as a treatment strategy for H. pylori infection. However, further robust assessment across a much broader range of patients is required before sequential therapy could supplant existing treatment regimens and be generally recommended in clinical practice.

Transferability indices for health economic evaluations: methods and applications

In this paper, we have elaborated an index in two phases to measure the degree of transferability of the results of the economic evaluation of health technologies. In the first phase, we have considered the objective factors (critical and non-critical) to derive a general transferability index, which can be used to measure this internal property of the studies of economic evaluation applied to health technologies. In the second phase, with a more specific index, we have measured the degree of applicability of the results of a given study to a different setting. Both indices have been combined (arithmetic and geometric mean) to obtain a global transferability index. We have applied the global index to a sample of 27 Spanish studies on infectious diseases. We have obtained an average value for the index of 0.54, quite far from the maximum theoretical value of 1. We also found that 11 studies lacked some critical factor and were directly deemed as not transferable.

Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Systematic reviews systematically evaluate and summarize current knowledge and have many advantages over narrative reviews. Meta-analyses provide a more reliable and enhanced precision of effect estimate than do individual studies. Systematic reviews are invaluable for defining the methods used in subsequent studies, but, as retrospective research projects, they are subject to bias. Rigorous research methods are essential, and the quality depends on the extent to which scientific review methods are used. Systematic reviews can be misleading, unhelpful, or even harmful when data are inappropriately handled; meta-analyses can be misused when the difference between a patient seen in the clinic and those included in the meta-analysis is not considered. Furthermore, systematic reviews cannot answer all clinically relevant questions, and their conclusions may be difficult to incorporate into practice. They should be reviewed on an ongoing basis. As clinicians, we need proper methodological training to perform good systematic reviews and must ask the appropriate questions before we can properly interpret such a review and apply its conclusions to our patients. This paper aims to assist in the reading of a systematic review.

Pharmacokinetic- pharmacodynamic analysis of the role of CYP2C19 genotypes in short-term rabeprazole-based triple therapy against Helicobacter pylori

AIMS

The aim was to explore the role of CYP2C19 polymorphism in short-term rabeprazole-based triple therapy against Helicobacter pylori infection.

METHODS

Patients with H. pylori infection were tested for CYP2C19 genotype as poor metabolizers (PMs) or extensive metabolizers (EMs, homozygous EM or heterozygous EM) and given rabeprazole for 7 days. Antibiotics (clarithromycin and amoxicillin) were given on days 1-4, days 4-7, or days 1-7. A direct link model with an effect compartment was used in the population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. The status of H. pylori infection was evaluated.

RESULTS

Rabeprazole clearance was lower in CYP2C19 PMs than in EMs (with average values of 10.7 vs. 16.8 l h(-1) in PMs and EMs, respectively), resulting in higher plasma levels in the former group. The values of EC(50) and k(eo) of gastrin response increased with multiple doses of rabeprazole. The k(eo) values were lower in CYP2C19 PMs than in EMs on day 1 (0.012 vs. 0.017 x 10(-4) l min(-1)), and higher than in EMs on day 4 (0.804 vs. 0.169 x 10(-4) l min(-1)) of rabeprazole treatment. The predicted gastrin-time profile showed a higher response in CYP2C19 PMs than in EMs on days 4 and 7. Helicobacter pylori was eradicated in all CYP2C19 PMs except in one patient infected by a resistant strain. In contrast, in CYP2C19 EMs the eradication rates ranged from 58 to 85%.

CONCLUSIONS

CYP2C19 genotypes play a role in H. pylori eradication therapy. Rabeprazole-based short-term triple therapy may be applicable in CYP2C19 PMs for H. pylori eradication.

Meta-analysis: high-dose proton pump inhibitors vs. standard dose in triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

The evidence on whether high-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) increase cure rates of Helicobacter pylori treatment has not been previously assessed.

AIM

To evaluate the evidence on the usefulness of high-dose PPI in standard triple therapy by performing a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in multiple databases and in the abstracts submitted to the Digestive Diseases Week, the European Helicobacter Study Group congress and the United European Gastroenterology Week. Randomized trials comparing a standard dose of a PPI with high-dose PPI both twice a day in triple therapy combining a PPI plus clarithromycin and either amoxicillin or metronidazole were selected. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for all comparisons were calculated using Review Manager.

RESULTS

Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All used triple therapy for 7 days. A mean intention-to-treat cure rate of 82% was achieved with high-dose PPI and one of 74% with standard dose (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01-1.17). Subgroup analysis showed that the maximum increase was observed when the PPI compared were omeprazole 20 mg or pantoprazole 40 mg vs. esomeprazole 40 mg.

CONCLUSION

High-dose PPI seems more effective than standard-dose for curing H. pylori infection in 7-day triple therapy.

Comparison of 1- and 2-week pantoprazole-based triple therapies in clarithromycin-sensitive and resistant cases

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this prospective study were: (i) to compare the efficacy of 1-week with 2-week pantoprazole-based triple therapy and (ii) to evaluate the impact of clarithromycin resistance on Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication rates.

METHODS

Eighty dyspeptic patients were randomly allocated to two groups. The first group (PAC-1, n=40) received pantoprazole 40 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, and clarithromycin 500 mg twice a day for one week, and the second group (PAC-2, n=40) received the same regimen for two weeks. Endoscopy was repeated one month after the end of the treatment.

RESULTS

DNA extraction for clarithromycin resistance could not be performed in seven cases. Five cases were lost to follow-up. Clarithromycin resistance was found to be 44.1% (15/34) in the PAC-1 group and 58.8% (20/34) in the PAC-2 group (p>0.05). Eradication was achieved in 16 (PP: 47.1%, ITT: 44.4%) and 25 (PP:73.5%, ITT: 67.6%) patients in the PAC-1 and PAC-2 groups, respectively (p>0.05). H. pylori was eradicated in 4 of 15 (PP: 26.7%, ITT: 26.7%) clarithromycin-resistant patients in the PAC-1 group and in 12 of 20 (PP: 60%, ITT: 60%) clarithromycin-resistant patients in the PAC-2 group (p>0.05). Among the clarithromycin-sensitive ones, eradication was achieved in 12 of 19 (PP: 63.2%, ITT: 57.1%) patients in the PAC-1 group and in 13 of 14 (PP: 92.8%, ITT: 76.5%) patients in the PAC-2 group (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although the 2-week regimen of pantoprazole-based triple therapy was effective for H. pylori eradication in clarithromycin-sensitive cases, highly effective H. pylori eradication protocols are needed for clarithromycin-resistant ones.

Eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori

Eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori is recommended in a number of clinical conditions. In this article, we discuss the epidemiology and cellular mechanisms that result in antimicrobial resistance, the results of current eradication therapies, and new approaches to the management of Helicobacter pylori infection.

A report card to grade Helicobacter pylori therapy

Helicobacter pylori causes a serious bacterial infectious disease, and the expectations of therapy should reflect this fact. Increasing antibiotic resistance, especially to clarithromycin, has significantly undermined the effectiveness of legacy triple therapy consisting of a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin. Current cure rates are consistently below 80% intention-to-treat, the accepted threshold separating acceptable from unacceptable treatment results. Grading clinical studies into effectiveness categories using prespecified criteria would allow clinicians to objectively identify and compare regimens. We offer a therapy report card similar to that used to grade the performance of school children. The intention-to-treat cure rate categories are: F or unacceptable ( 80%), D or poor (81-84%), C or fair (85-89%), B or good (90-95%), and A or excellent (95-100%). The category of "excellent" is based on the cure rates expected with other prevalent bacterial infectious diseases. We propose that only therapies that score "excellent" (grade = A) should be prescribed. Regimens scoring as B or "good" can be used if "excellent" results are not obtainable. In most regions legacy triple therapy should be abandoned as unacceptable. Quadruple therapy and sequential therapy are reasonable alternatives for initial therapy.

2-week triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is better than 1-week in clinical practice: a large prospective single-center randomized study

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapies are considered the standard regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication, but the optimal duration of these regimens is still controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 1-week versus 2-week triple therapies in H. pylori-positive patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 486 consecutive H. pylori-positive patients were randomized to receive omeprazole, 20 mg b.i.d., clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d., and either amoxicillin 1 g b.i.d. or metronidazole 500 mg b.i.d. for 1 or 2 weeks. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and histology were performed at entry and 2 months after the end of therapy. H. pylori status was defined according to histology and urea breath test.

RESULTS

At intention-to-treat analysis, 2-week therapy with omeprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin achieved a significantly higher eradication rate than 1- or 2-week regimens with metronidazole (70% versus 52%, p = .003, versus 56%, p < .01) and the same therapy for 1-week (70% versus 57%, p = .05). At per-protocol analysis, 2-week therapy with omeprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin showed a significantly higher eradication rate than 1-week of amoxicillin and metronidazole (77% versus 62%; p = .03) but no difference with 1-week same regimen (66%) or 2-week metronidazole and clarithromycin regimen (72%). Compliance and tolerability were good for all regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-week therapies, independently of antibiotic combination, lead to a significant increase of H. pylori eradication rate compared to 1-week therapies, with same compliance and tolerability, even if, taking account of low-eradication rates, one must question whether the triple therapy should still be used.

[Seven or ten days? Cost-effectiveness study on the duration of H. pylori treatment in primary care]

OBJECTIVE

To determine through an economic evaluation study whether it is cost-effective to extend treatment of dyspeptic patients from 7 to 10 days, distinguishing between functional dyspepsia, unexamined dyspepsia, and ulcer disease.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness study by means of a decision 3 comparing direct costs per patient cured with 2 strategies: a) 7 days treatment versus b) 10 days. Two-year study in the National Health System.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

One-hundred patients with peptic ulcer, functional dyspepsia, or unexamined dyspepsia who received treatment for H pylori infection.

INTERVENTIONS

H pylori eradication treatment with a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, and amoxycillin for 7 or 10 days. Measurement variable: incremental cost per patient cured.

RESULTS

In peptic ulcer patients, the incremental cost per patient cured on extending the eradication treatment from 7 to 10 days was euro147 (95% CI, 121.3-162.7), whereas in patients with functional or unexamined dyspepsia, it was -euro39.8 (95% CI, -28.5 to -60.7) and -euro27.3 (95% CI, -14.92 to -52.72), respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed that the efficacy of eradication treatment (7 vs 10) was the factor that most affected the stability of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven days is the most cost-effective duration of the triple therapy for eradicating H pylori in ulcer patients. However, 10 days is more cost-effective in functional dyspepsia patients or those with no prior endoscope diagnosis.

Pharmacoeconomic comparison of Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori is the most important etiologic agent for development of peptic ulcer, chronic gastritis and gastric carcinomas. It is now well established that H. pylori eradication treatment is more cost-effective than acid suppressing therapies alone for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease. However, the comparative cost-effectiveness of various H. pylori eradication regimens is still not clear.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to make a pharmacoeconomic comparison of different H. pylori eradication regimens in patients with peptic ulcer disease or chronic gastritis, using real-world cost and effectiveness data.

SETTING

Istanbul University Hospital and Marmara University Hospital.

METHOD

A total of 75 patients diagnosed as H. pylori (+) by endoscopy were randomized to receive one of the seven H. pylori treatment protocols. These protocols were as follows: (LAC) = 'lansoprazole 30 mg bid + amoxicillin 1 g bid + clarithromycin 500 mg bid' for 7 days and (OCM) = 'omeprazole 20 mg bid + clarithromycin 250 mg bid + metronidazole 500 mg bid'; (OAM) = 'omeprazole 40 mg qd + amoxicillin 500 mg tid + metronidazole 500 mg tid'; (MARB) = 'metronidazole 250 mg tid + amoxicillin 500 mg qid + ranitidine 300 mg hs + bismuth 300 mg qid'; (OAC) = omeprazole 20 mg bid + amoxicillin 1 g bid + clarithromycin 500 mg bid'; (OCA) = omeprazole 40 mg bid + clarithromycin 500 mg bid + amoxicillin 1 g bid'; (OAB) = 'omeprazole 20 mg bid + amoxicillin 500 mg tid + bismuth 300 mg qid' each for 14 days. Only direct costs were included in the analysis. Effectiveness was measured in terms of "successful eradication". The cost-effectiveness ratios of the regimens were calculated using these effectiveness and cost data. The perspective of the study was assumed as the Government's perspective.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Cost-effectiveness ratios of eradication regimens.

RESULTS

MARB and OCA regimens were found to be more cost-effective than the other treatment regimens. The eradication rates and cost-effectiveness ratios calculated for these protocols were 90% (158.7 euros) for MARB and 90% (195.8 euros) for OCA regimen.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the importance of using local pharmacoeconomic data. Analyses such as this give decision-makers the tools to choose a better treatment option which is both highly effective yet and has a low cost.

Helicobacter pylori-associated ulcer bleeding: should we test for eradication after treatment?

BACKGROUND

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori after peptic ulcer haemorrhage reduces the risk of recurrence. Because H. pylori treatment is very effective, it is unclear whether testing to confirm eradication is worthwhile.

AIMS

To examine whether patients with H. pylori-associated peptic ulcer haemorrhage should be tested for successful eradication after completion of antibiotic therapy.

METHODS

A Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare testing vs. non-testing of H. pylori eradication in peptic ulcer haemorrhage. Probability estimates and average costs were derived from published information.

RESULTS

Testing for H. pylori eradication resulted in a benefit of 0.07 quality-adjusted life-years and cost 836 US dollars less than the strategy of not confirming eradication. Testing remained the superior strategy when varying the model regarding age, the initial success of eradication, various test and retreatment strategies, and the rate and costs of recurrent bleeding. Assuming a high eradication rate (95%), the test strategy becomes more expensive only if the cost of H. pylori testing reaches 265 US dollars; however, even under these conditions it remains cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with H. pylori-associated peptic ulcer bleeding should be tested to confirm eradiation of H. pylori after completion of antibiotic treatment.

Seven versus ten days of rabeprazole triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Ten-day triple therapy is somewhat more effective than 7-day treatment for curing Helicobacter pylori infection. Recent studies have suggested that rabeprazole-a proton pump inhibitor with fast onset of acid inhibition-could raise the efficacy of 7-day therapies to the levels obtained with 10-day treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of 7- and 10-day rabeprazole-based triple therapy for H. pylori eradication.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four hundred and fifty-eight patients were randomized to 7 or 10 days of triple therapy, including rabeprazole 20 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and amoxicillin 1 g, all twice a day. Cure rates were evaluated by urea breath test.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-seven patients received 7-day and 221 received 10-day therapy. Groups were comparable in terms of demographic variables. Intention to treat cure rates were 73.8% (95% CI: 67-79%) for 7-day and 79.6% (95%: CI:74-85%) for 10-day therapy (p= 0.09). Per-protocol cure rates were 81.8% (95% CI:76-86%) and 89.3% (95% CI: 84-93%), p= 0.02, respectively. Cure rates were similar in peptic ulcer patients but in subjects without ulcer they were clearly lower for 7-day therapy: 66%versus 77% by intention to treat (p= 0.08) and 73%versus 91% in the per-protocol analysis (p= 0.004). Side effects and compliance in the two groups were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven- and 10-day triple therapies seem equally efficient in peptic ulcer patients. In contrast, 7-day therapy is significantly less effective in nonulcer dyspepsia patients. Ten-day therapy, therefore, seems preferable when treating nonulcer patients.

Meta-analysis: the influence of pre-treatment with a proton pump inhibitor on Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

There is much debate about the influence of pre-treatment with a proton pump inhibitor on Helicobacter pylori eradication. The few studies investigating the influence of pre-treatment on triple and quadruple therapies did not find differences in eradication rates. However, the high eradication rates make it difficult to study factors associated with therapy failure in small populations. In order to overcome this problem we performed a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The literature was searched in order to identify randomized clinical trials comparing modern triple/quadruple therapies for H. pylori eradication without pre-treatment with a proton pump inhibitor with exactly the same regimen with pre-treatment. The overall risk difference (with - without pre-treatment) was calculated by pooling the risk differences of the individual studies weighted by the inverse of their variances.

RESULTS

Nine studies, investigating a total of 773 patients, were identified. There was considerable variation regarding therapy regimen and duration. Pooled eradication rates were 81.3% (312 of 384) for patients with pre-treatment and 81.2% (316 of 389) for patients without pre-treatment. The (weighted) overall risk difference was 0.1% (95% CI: -5%; 5%).

CONCLUSION

Pre-treatment with a proton pump inhibitor does not influence H. pylori eradication.

Comparison of two management strategies for Helicobacter pylori treatment: clinical study and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

First-line proton pump inhibitor-based triple and quadruple therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication present similar levels of efficacy. Cross-over treatment (quadruple following triple failure, and triple following quadruple failure) seems the most sensible approach to treatment failures, but the two strategies -'quadruple first' versus 'triple first'- have not been previously compared. The aims of our study were to assess the usefulness and the cost-effectiveness of the two treatment strategies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-nine out of 344 patients included in a previous study comparing triple therapy - 7 days of omeprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin twice a day - with quadruple therapy - 7 days of omeprazole twice a day, plus tetracycline, metronidazole and bismuth subcitrate three times a day - failed initial treatment and were assigned to cross-over therapy. Cure was determined by urea breath test. A decision analysis was performed to compare the two eradication strategies.

RESULTS

Intention to treat cure rates were 46% (10/22 patients; 95% CI 24-68%) for second-line triple therapy and 63% (17/27 patients; 95% CI 42-81%) for second-line quadruple therapy. Per protocol cure rates were 71% and 85%, respectively. Intention to treat cure rates were 87% (95% CI 81-92%) for the 'triple first' versus 86% (95% CI 80-91%) for the 'quadruple first' strategy (p = .87). The 'quadruple first' strategy was more cost-effective. The incremental cost of 'triple first' strategy per person was 19 in the low-cost area and 65 US dollars in the high-cost area.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of 'triple first' and 'quadruple first' strategies is similar, although the latter seems slightly more cost-effective.

The Cost of Enhanced Acid Suppression

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding are conditions that can make large demands on health care resources. Acid suppression is common therapy for these conditions. The economic implications of managing Helicobacter pylori-related PUD, GERD, and upper gastrointestinal bleeds were considered by several investigators. Economic analyses of drug regimens for PUD show that eradication is more cost effective than H2-receptor antagonist (H2RA) maintenance therapy. Although various eradication regimens have been compared, the results depend on a number of assumptions that preclude general conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness. Economic analyses related to GERD are hindered by the often chronic, relapsing nature of the disease, particularly once therapy is discontinued. Therefore, as with PUD, results of the economic analyses depend largely on initial assumptions relative to the model employed. With regard to upper gastrointestinal bleeding, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are potent acid suppressors that may help prevent rebleeding that was managed endoscopically. Further clinical and economic investigations of PPIs for stress ulcer prophylaxis are necessary. Cost-effectiveness studies comparing PPIs and H2RAs should focus on overall costs of managing these conditions and include economic benefits of preventing complications, and not on drug-acquisition costs alone.

Triple vs. quadruple therapy for treating Helicobacter pylori infection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Triple therapy (proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin and amoxicillin or an imidazole) is the first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection. However, the effectiveness of triple therapy is decreasing due to the increase in antibiotic resistance. Quadruple therapy (proton pump inhibitor, tetracycline, metronidazole and a bismuth salt) is a very effective regimen even in areas of high prevalence of antibiotic resistance, and may be an alternative first-line treatment.

AIM

To compare triple vs. quadruple therapy for the first-line treatment of H. pylori infection.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed to identify randomized trials comparing triple vs. quadruple therapy. Selected trials were included in a meta-analysis using Review Manager 4.1.

RESULTS

Four studies met the inclusion criteria. Eradication rates with quadruple therapy were slightly higher in both the intention-to-treat (81% vs. 78%; odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.14) and per protocol (88% vs. 85%; odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.20) analysis, although the differences were not statistically significant. Nor were there significant differences in compliance or adverse effects between the therapies.

CONCLUSION

Triple and quadruple therapies seem to be roughly equivalent in terms of effectiveness, compliance and side-effects profile when administered as first-line treatment for H. pylori infection.

Helicobacter pylori: the challenge in therapy

For the therapeutic management of Helicobacter pylori infection, the Maastricht 2-2000 Consensus Report have introduced the concept of the 'treatment package' that considers first- and second-line eradication therapies together. According to this consensus statement, the first-line therapy for H. pylori eradication is a combination of the proton pump inhibitors (PPI) or ranitidine bismuth citrate (RBC) and claritromycin plus either amoxicillin or metronidazole. The second-line treatment is suggested to be PPI-quadruple therapy for a minimum of 7 days. If bismuth compounds are not available, PPI-based triple therapy will have to be used as a second-line treatment only after susceptibility testing. Since no considerable progress has been made during the past year in treatment regimens, there is still a need for new compounds that are specific for H. pylori, which could constitute future therapies.

New strategies for the prevention and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection

Helicobacter pylori infects the stomach of > 50% of the human population worldwide, with higher prevalence in the developing countries. A strict correlation between H. pylori infection and gastroduodenal diseases has been demonstrated, including gastritis, peptic ulcer and gastric cancer. Current therapies against H. pylori consist of an antisecretory plus antibiotics. These therapies are effective in 80 - 90% of the cases; presently, no alternative therapies have been shown to give comparable or better results. There are two main reasons for therapy failure: poor compliance, which results in cure discontinuation, and antibiotic resistance. To overcome the drawbacks inherent to any antibiotic therapy, a prophylactic vaccine seems to be the most reasonable approach. Vaccines have been developed based on data obtained in animal models, a number of which are currently in Phase I clinical trials, in some cases giving encouraging data for safety and immunogenicity. In the absence of any immunological correlate of protection against H. pylori, it will be possible to evaluate the efficacy of these vaccines only in large Phase III clinical trials.

One-week triple vs. quadruple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection - a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Seven-day triple therapy including omeprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin has become the treatment of choice for Helicobacter pylori infection. However, 7 days of classical quadruple therapy combining omeprazole, tetracycline, metronidazole and bismuth may be an alternative to triple therapy.

AIM

To compare triple vs. quadruple therapy for H.pylori eradication.

METHODS

Three hundred and thirty-nine patients with peptic ulcer and H. pylori infection were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive omeprazole, 20 mg, amoxicillin, 1 g, and clarithromycin, 500 mg, all b.d., or omeprazole, 20 mg b.d., tetracycline chloride, 500 mg, metronidazole, 500 mg, and bismuth subcitrate, 120 mg, all t.d.s. Cure was defined as a negative urea breath test at least 2 months after treatment.

RESULTS

Per protocol and intention-to-treat cure rates were 86%[95% confidence interval (CI), 80-91%] and 77% (95% CI, 70-83%) for triple therapy, and 89% (95% CI, 82-93%) and 83% (95% CI, 76-88%) for quadruple therapy. No significant differences between the groups were found in the cure rates, compliance or side-effects.

CONCLUSION

One-week triple and quadruple therapy show similar results when used as first-line eradication treatment.

Helicobacter pylori infection: treatment

Current standard treatment regimens for Helicobacter pylori infection provide eradication rates 80 to 90%. These rates have been achieved with a variety of 1-week triple therapies using two antibiotics and an acid suppressant. Antibiotic resistance, which may develop during failed treatment, is becoming increasingly common and has led to studies of new regimens for primary therapy, and new strategies for salvage of failed therapy. Other regimens have been designed and tested with the aim of decreasing the cost of initial therapy or to improve compliance, but abbreviated regimens have high incidence of failure and may add to the problem of resistance. Increasing attention has been paid to the need for, and timing of, the determination of antibiotic resistance of H. pylori isolates either at the time of initial diagnosis or after treatment failure. New, simpler, and noninvasive methods are offered for follow-up to determine if eradication has been successful. Treatment regimens should be chosen based on local drug susceptibility patterns and the availability of approved therapeutic agents in each country. Established indications for testing for H. pylori and administering therapy include active or inactive peptic ulcer disease, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, as well as hyperplastic polyps, hyperplastic gastropathy, postendoscopic resection for gastric malignancy, and acute H. pylori gastritis. It is now largely accepted that noninvestigated dyspepsia is an indication for testing for and treating H. pylori, but that dyspeptic symptoms shown not to be associated with ulcer (nonulcer dyspepsia) do not now provide an indication for testing. Controversial or unresolved indications for testing and treating include planned use of chronic antisecretory therapy, planned use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and use as a general approach to the prevention of gastric cancer.