Cure of Helicobacter pylori infection after failed primary treatment: one-center results from 120 patients

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Review article: rifabutin in the treatment of refractory Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Even with the current most effective treatment regimens, a relevant proportion of patients will fail to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection.

AIM

To evaluate the role of rifabutin in the treatment of H. pylori infection.

METHODS

Bibliographical searches were performed in MEDLINE. Data on the efficacy of rifabutin-containing regimens on H. pylori eradication were combined and meta-analysed using the generic inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Rifabutin shows good in vitro activity against H. pylori. Mean H. pylori rifabutin resistance rate (calculated from 11 studies including 2982 patients) was 1.3% (95% confidence interval = 0.9-1.7%). When only studies including patients naïve to H. pylori eradication treatment were considered, this figure was even lower (0.6%). On the other hand, higher values of rifabutin resistance were calculated (1.59%) when only post-treatment patients were considered. Overall, mean H. pylori eradication rate (intention-to-treat analysis) with rifabutin-containing regimens (1008 patients) was 73% (67-79%). Respective cure rates for second-line (223 patients), third-line (342 patients) and fourth/fifth-line (95 patients) rifabutin therapies were 79% (67-92%), 66% (55-77%) and 70% (60-79%) respectively. For treating H. pylori infection, almost all studies have administered rifabutin 300 mg/day; this dose seems to be more effective than 150 mg/day. The ideal length of treatment remains unclear, but 10- to 12-day regimens are generally recommended. The mean rate of adverse effects was 22% (19-25%). Myelotoxicity is the most significant, although this complication was rare. Until now, all patients have recovered of leucopenia uneventfully in a few days, and there have been no reports of infection or other adverse outcomes related to it.

CONCLUSION

Rifabutin-containing rescue therapy constitutes an encouraging strategy after multiple (usually three) previous eradication failures with key antibiotics such as amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline and levofloxacin.

Bovine antibody-based oral immunotherapy for reduction of intragastric Helicobacter pylori colonization: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic-based regimens are frequently used for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. These regimens fail to eradicate H pylori in 15% to 40% of patients, primarily due to antimicrobial resistance and insufficient patient compliance. Effective prevention and eradication of H pylori by passive immunization with orally administered bovine antibodies has been demonstrated in animal studies, and may serve as an alternative therapy in humans.

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy and safety of orally administered bovine anti-H pylori antibodies for the reduction of intragastric bacterial load and eradication of H pylori in humans.

METHODS

Dairy cows were immunized against H pylori. After confirmation of the presence of anti-H pylori antibodies in the milk, the milk was subsequently processed into a whey protein concentrate (WPC). In a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, H pylori-infected subjects were randomly assigned to treatment with the WPC preparation or placebo. Study medication was continued for 28 days; subjects were followed-up for 56 days.

RESULTS

Of the 30 subjects included, 27 completed the protocol. Of these 27 evaluable subjects, 14 were treated with WPC and 13 with placebo. There was no significant difference in urea breath test decrease between the WPC- and placebo-treated group (P=0.75). H pylori-associated gastritis and density were not significantly reduced in either group after treatment (P>0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

Bovine antibody-based oral immunotherapy appears to be safe, but does not significantly reduce intragastric density in humans. Further studies are needed to determine whether WPC treatment has additional value to conventional antibiotic treatment for H pylori.

Second-line rescue therapy of helicobacter pylori infection

Helicobacter pylori infection is the main known cause of gastritis, gastroduodenal ulcer disease and gastric cancer. After more than 20 years of experience in H. pylori treatment, however, the ideal regimen to treat this infection has still to be found. Nowadays, apart from having to know well first-line eradication regimens, we must also be prepared to face treatment failures. Therefore, in designing a treatment strategy we should not focus on the results of primary therapy alone, but also on the final (overall) eradication rate. The choice of a 'rescue' treatment depends on which treatment is used initially. If a first-line clarithromycin-based regimen was used, a second-line metronidazole-based treatment (quadruple therapy) may be used afterwards, and then a levofloxacin-based combination would be a third-line 'rescue' option. Alternatively, it has recently been suggested that levofloxacin-based 'rescue' therapy constitutes an encouraging second-line strategy, representing an alternative to quadruple therapy in patients with previous PPI-clarithromycin-amoxicillin failure, with the advantage of efficacy, simplicity and safety. In this case, quadruple regimen may be reserved as a third-line 'rescue' option. Finally, rifabutin-based 'rescue' therapy constitutes an encouraging empirical fourth-line strategy after multiple previous eradication failures with key antibiotics such as amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, and levofloxacin. Even after two consecutive failures, several studies have demonstrated that H. pylori eradication can finally be achieved in almost all patients if several 'rescue' therapies are consecutively given. Therefore, the attitude in H. pylori eradication therapy failure, even after two or more unsuccessful attempts, should be to fight and not to surrender.

Cumulative H. pylori eradication rates in clinical practice by adopting first and second-line regimens proposed by the Maastricht III consensus and a third-line empirical regimen

OBJECTIVES

The European Helicobacter Study Group has recently issued the current concepts in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection (Maastricht III Consensus Report, 2005). The aim of the study was to examine the cumulative H. pylori eradication rates that can be achieved in clinical practice by adopting first and second regimens as proposed by the Maastricht III consensus and a third-line empirical levofloxacin-based regimen.

METHODS

H. pylori-positive patients were treated initially with a first-line eradication triple regimen consisting of omeprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin and subsequently with a second-line quadruple regimen consisting of omeprazole, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline. Finally, after two previous H. pylori eradication failures, patients received omeprazole, amoxicillin, and levofloxacin, as a third-line empirical strategy. The success rate was calculated by both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 540 consecutive H. pylori-positive patients received first-line treatment (omeprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin). H. pylori were eradicated in 380 patients and 40 patients were withdrawn (ITT, 70.3%; PP, 76%). The remaining 120 H. pylori-positive patients received second-line treatment (omeprazole, bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline). H. pylori were eradicated in 83 patients and 7 patients were withdrawn (ITT, 69.1%; PP, 73.45%). Finally, the remaining 30 H. pylori-positive patients received third-line treatment (omeprazole, amoxicillin, and levofloxacin). H. pylori were eradicated in 21 patients and 0 patients were withdrawn (ITT, 70%; PP, 70%). Thus, out of 540 patients initially included in the study, H. pylori were eradicated in 484 patients, 47 were withdrawn, and only 9 remained positive. These results give 89.6% ITT and 98.1% PP cumulative H. pylori eradication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

By adopting first- and second-line regimens, as proposed by the Maastricht III consensus and a third-line levofloxacin-based empirical regimen, high cumulative H. pylori eradication rates can be achieved. Thus, a substantial number of cultures to determine sensitivity to antibiotics can be avoided with beneficial consequences concerning cost.

“Rescue” regimens after Helicobacter pylori treatment failure

Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection is the main cause of gastritis, gastroduodenal ulcer disease, and gastric cancer. After more than 20 years of experience in H pylori treatment, in my opinion, the ideal regimen to treat this infection is still to be found. Currently, apart from having to know first-line eradication regimens well, we must also be prepared to face treatment failures. Therefore, in designing a treatment strategy we should not focus on the results of primary therapy alone, but also on the final (overall) eradication rate. The choice of a “rescue” treatment depends on which treatment is used initially. If a clarithromycin-based regimen was used initially, a subsequent metronidazole-based treatment (quadruple therapy) may be used afterwards, and then a levofloxacin-based combination would be a third “rescue” option. Alternatively, it has recently been suggested that levofloxacin-based rescue therapy constitutes an encouraging second-line strategy, representing an alternative to quadruple therapy in patients with previous PPI-clarithromycin-amoxicillin failure, with the advantage of efficacy, simplicity and safety. In this case, a quadruple regimen may be reserved as a third-line rescue option. Finally, rifabutin-based rescue therapy constitutes an encouraging empirical fourth-line strategy after multiple previous eradication failures with key antibiotics such as amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, and levofloxacin. Even after two consecutive failures, several studies have demonstrated that H pylori eradication can finally be achieved in almost all patients if several rescue therapies are consecutively given. Therefore, the attitude in H pylori eradication therapy failure, even after two or more unsuccessful attempts, should be to fight and not to surrender.

Empirical rescue therapy after Helicobacter pylori treatment failure: a 10-year single-centre study of 500 patients

BACKGROUND

Several 'rescue' therapies have been recommended to eradicate Helicobacter pylori, but they still fail in >20% of the cases, and these patients constitute a therapeutic dilemma.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of different 'rescue' therapies empirically prescribed during 10 years to 500 patients in whom at least one eradication regimen had failed to cure H. pylori infection.

DESIGN

Prospective single-centre study.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients in whom at least one eradication regimen had failed.

INTERVENTION

Rescue regimens included: (i) quadruple therapy with omeprazole-bismuth-tetracycline-metronidazole; (ii) ranitidine bismuth citrate-tetracycline-metronidazole; (iii) omeprazole-amoxicillin-levofloxacin; and (iv) omeprazole-amoxicillin-rifabutin. Antibiotic susceptibility was unknown (rescue regimens were chosen empirically).

OUTCOME

Eradication was defined as a negative (13)C-urea breath test 4-8 weeks after completing therapy.

RESULTS

Five hundred patients were included (76% functional dyspepsia, 24% peptic ulcer). Compliance rates with first-, second- and third-line regimens were 92%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. Adverse effects were reported by 30%, 37%, and 55% of the patients receiving second-, third-, and fourth-line regimens. Overall, H. pylori cure rates with the second-, third-, and fourth-line rescue regimens were 70%, 74%, and 76%, respectively. Cumulative H. pylori eradication rate with four successive treatments was 99.5%.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to construct an overall treatment strategy to maximize H. pylori eradication, on the basis of administration of four consecutive empirical regimens; thus, performing bacterial culture even after a second or third eradication failure may not be necessary.

Helicobacter pylori "rescue" therapy after failure of two eradication treatments

Nowadays, apart from having to know well first-line eradication regimens, we must also be prepared to face Helicobacter pylori treatment failures. Therefore, in designing a treatment strategy we should not focus on the results of primary therapy alone, but also on the final--overall--eradication rate. After failure of a combination of proton pump inhibitor (PPI), amoxicillin, and clarithromycin, the use of empirical quadruple therapy (PPI-bismuth-tetracycline-metronidazole), has been generally used as the optimal second-line therapy. Even after two consecutive failures, several studies have demonstrated that H. pylori eradication can finally be achieved in almost all patients if several "rescue" therapies are consecutively given. It seems that performing culture even after a second eradication failure may not be necessary, as it is possible to construct an overall strategy to maximize H. pylori eradication, based on the different possibilities of empirical treatment (when antibiotic susceptibilities are unknown). Thus, if one does not want to perform culture before the administration of the third treatment after failure of the first two, different empirical treatments exist, including regimens based on: 1, amoxicillin (amoxicillin-PPI at high doses); 2, amoxicillin plus tetracycline (PPI-bismuth-tetracycline-amoxicillin, or ranitidine-bismuth-citrate-tetracyline-amoxicillin); 3, rifabutin (rifabutin-amoxicillin-PPI); 4, levofloxacin (levofloxacin-amoxicillin-PPI); and 5, furazolidone (furazolidone-bismuth-tetracycline-PPI).

Stability of metronidazole, tetracycline HCl and famotidine alone and in combination

Metronidazole, tetracycline HCl and famotidine are commonly used for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori-associated peptic ulcer. In this paper, stabilities of these drugs and their combinations in solid and liquid states were studied as part of preformulation in the development of a combination drug delivery system. Solubility studies of metronidazole and tetracycline HCl were investigated, which indicated that both metronidazole and tetracycline HCl have high solubilities at and around pH 2.0. Metronidazole is relatively stable with little degradation in liquid phase. Tetracycline HCl in the dry state is stable when stored at room temperature regardless of exposure to light or humidity in the range of 20-65%. Enhanced temperature associated humidity effect was responsible for the instabilities of tetracycline HCl and famotidine to different extents. Elevated temperature accelerated the degradation of all the drugs in liquid phase but light exposure was not a factor for the degradation. The degradation processes of tetracycline HCl and famotidine were highly dependent on the pH of the solution, and relatively stable profiles were achieved at pH 4.0. No potential incompatibility between the drugs under storage conditions was observed in the development of a new multi-drug delivery tablet.

Rifabutin based triple therapy for eradication of H. pylori primary and secondary resistant to tinidazole and clarithromycin

BACKGROUND

Rifabutin has been empirically used in Helicobacter pylori infections resistant to triple therapy. There are no data on primary and secondary resistance to rifabutin and its use in specific cases.

AIM

To analyse the susceptibility and resistance to rifabutin in H. pylori-positive patients with or without previous H. pylori therapy and to test the efficacy of rifabutin in H. pylori resistant to clarithromycin and tinidazole.

METHODS

Four hundred and twenty H. pylori-positive patients without previous exposure to triple therapy and 104 patients who had already received one course of triple therapy underwent upper endoscopy for dyspeptic symptoms and H. pylori susceptibility test. Amoxicillin, clarithromycin, tinidazole and rifabutin were evaluated for resistance and susceptibility. Forty patients with primary resistance to both clarithromycin and tinidazole and with susceptibility to amoxicillin and rifabutin, and 65 patients with secondary resistance and susceptibility to the same antibiotics were identified. All these patients received a 10-day triple therapy with pantoprazole amoxicillin and rifabutin. Treatment success was evaluated by the 13C-Urea Breath test.

RESULTS

In naive patients 23% of strains were resistant to clarythromycin, 35% to tinidazole, 9% to both antibiotics, and none was resistant to rifabutin In patients already treated the percentages of resistant strains were 76, 64.4, 62.5 and 1%, respectively. With rifabutin based triple therapy eradication rates were (Per Protocol and Intention-to-Treat analysis) 100 and 87.5% in primary resistance to clarithromycin and tinidazole and 82.2 and 78.5% in secondary resistance.

CONCLUSION

H. pylori primary and secondary resistances to clarithromycin and tinidazole are high in our geographic area, while resistance to rifabutin is rare. Rifabutin-based triple therapy, can be successfully used in primary and secondary resistance to clarithromycin and tinidazole according to the in vitro susceptibility test.

Empirical Helicobacter pylori "rescue" therapy after failure of two eradication treatments

AIM

Even with the current most effective Helicobacter pylori treatment regimens, approximately 20% of patients do not eradicate the infection. Several "rescue" therapies have been recommended, but they still fail to eradicate H. pylori in approximately 20-30% of the cases. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of different rescue therapies prescribed to patients in whom two consecutive H. pylori eradication regimens had failed.

METHODS

Design. Prospective single-centre study. Patients. Consecutive patients in whom two eradication regimens had failed to eradicate H. pylori. Intervention. Third eradication regimens included: (1) omeprazole-amoxicillin-clarithromycin for 7 days; (2) quadruple therapy with omeprazole-bismuth-tetracycline-metronidazole for 7 days; (3) omeprazole-amoxicillin-clarithromycin-bismuth for 14 days; and (4) omeprazole-amoxicillin-rifabutin for 14 days. H. pylori antibiotic susceptibility was unknown and, therefore, rescue regimens were chosen empirically. In no case, was the same regimen repeated. Outcome. H. pylori eradication was defined as a negative in 13C-urea breath test 8 weeks after completing the therapy.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were included (mean age 45 years, 44% males, 82% with peptic ulcer and 18% with functional dyspepsia). No patient was lost from follow-up. Adverse effects were described in 21% of the patients. One patient receiving omeprazole, amoxicillin and rifabutin was removed from medication due to adverse effects (vomiting). Overall, mean H. pylori eradication with third therapy after failure of two eradication treatments was 34/48 (71%; 95% confidence interval 57-82%) by intention-to-treat and 34/47 (72%; 95% confidence interval 58-83%) by per-protocol.

CONCLUSION

It seems that performing culture even after a second eradication failure may not be necessary, as it is possible to construct an overall strategy to maximise H. pylori eradication, based on the different possibilities of empirical treatment.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori improves the healing rate and reduces the relapse rate of nonbleeding ulcers in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer

OBJECTIVE

A causal relationship between Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and peptic ulcer complications remains obscure. The aim of this study was to determine the importance of H. pylori and other risk factors for healing rate, ulcer recurrence, and rebleeding in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

METHOD

A total of 223 patients with H. pylori positive bleeding peptic ulcer were randomly allocated to three treatment groups: 1) quadruple therapy (QT) (88 patients); 2) dual therapy (DT) (88 patients); and 3) omeprazole and placebo therapy (OPl) (47 patients). Endoscopic assessment was performed initially and at 8 and 52 wk. Ulcer healing and eradication rates were assessed; endpoints were ulcer relapse and ulcer rebleeding during 52 wk.

RESULTS

Results after 8 and 52 wk were available for 211 and 179 patients, respectively. Eradication rate was 100% (95% CI = 96-100%) in the QT, 84% (95% CI = 74-91%) in the DT, and 4% (95% CI = 1-15%) in the OPl group. Ulcer healing rate was 95% (95% CI = 91-98%) in H. pylori negative and 8% (95% CI = 70-91%) in H. pylori positive patients. Ulcer relapses occurred in 2% (95% CI = 0.5-6%) of H. pylori negative and in 38% (95% CI = 24-54%) of H. pylori positive patients, and rebleeding occurred in five patients (three H. pylori positive and two negative).

CONCLUSIONS

Eradication of H. pylori infection enhances healing of bleeding peptic ulcers after endoscopic therapy. H. pylori infection is an important independent risk factor for relapsing of nonbleeding ulcers in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

'Rescue' therapy with rifabutin after multiple Helicobacter pylori treatment failures

AIM

Eradication therapy with proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin and amoxicillin is extensively used, although it fails in a considerable number of cases. A 'rescue' therapy with a quadruple combination of omeprazole, bismuth, tetracycline and metronidazole (or ranitidine bismuth citrate with these same antibiotics) has been recommended, but it still fails in approximately 20% of cases. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a rifabutin-based regimen in patients with two consecutive H. pylori eradication failures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

DESIGN

Prospective multicenter study.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients in whom a first eradication trial with omeprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin and a second trial with omeprazole, bismuth, tetracycline and metronidazole (three patients) or ranitidine bismuth citrate with these same antibiotics (11 patients) had failed were included.

INTERVENTION

A third eradication regimen with rifabutin (150 mg bid), amoxicillin (1 g bid) and omeprazole (20 mg bid) was prescribed for 14 days. All drugs were administered together after breakfast and dinner. Compliance with therapy was determined from the interrogatory and the recovery of empty envelopes of medications.

OUTCOME

H. pylori eradication was defined as a negative 13C-urea breath test 8 weeks after completing therapy.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients have been included. Mean age +/- SD was 42 +/- 11 years, 41% males, peptic ulcer (57%), functional dyspepsia (43%). All patients took all the medications and completed the study protocol. Per-protocol and intention-to-treat eradication was achieved in 11/14 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval = 49-95%). Adverse effects were reported in five patients (36%), and included: abdominal pain (three patients), nausea and vomiting (one patient), and oral candidiasis (one patient); no patient abandoned the treatment due to adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Rifabutin-based rescue therapy constitutes an encouraging strategy after multiple previous eradication failures with key antibiotics such as amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole and tetracycline.

Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Eradication Failures

Even with the current most effective treatment regimens, about 10% to 20% of patients will fail to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection. Therefore, in designing a treatment strategy, we should not focus on the results of primary therapy alone but also on the final (overall) eradication rate. The choice of a second-line treatment depends on which treatment was used initially, because retreatment with the same regimen is not recommended. Therefore, it seems that performing culture after a first eradication failure is not necessary and assessing H. pylori sensitivity to antibiotics only after failure of the second treatment is suggested in clinical practice. Different possibilities of empirical treatment are suggested. After failure of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-amoxicillin-clarithromycin, quadruple therapy has been generally used. More recently, replacing the PPI and the bismuth compound by ranitidine bismuth citrate has also achieved good results. After PPI-amoxicillin-nitroimidazole failure, retreatment with PPI-amoxicillin-clarithromycin has proved to be effective. Finally, the first therapy should not combine clarithromycin and metronidazole in the same regimen because of the problem of resistance against both antibiotics. Recently, rifabutin-based rescue therapies have been shown to constitute an encouraging strategy for eradication failures because they are effective for H. pylori strains resistant to antibiotics.

Alternative and rescue treatment regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication

Eradication therapy has been incorporated into clinical practice. The regimens currently recommended for first-line treatment include a 2-week bismuth-based triple therapy (mainly in developing countries), a 1 - 2 week proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapy and a 1-week ranitidine bismuth citrate (RBC)-based triple therapy. However, these regimens fail to eradicate Helicobacter pylori in up to 20% of patients due to poor compliance, inadequate treatment duration, smoking, old age and bacterial resistance to nitroimidazoles and/or macrolides in particular. Therefore, alternative regimens that avoid nitroimidazoles and/or macrolides or overcome bacterial resistance to these drugs, improve compliance, minimise side effects and/or reduce costs have been evaluated. One-week quadruple therapy, which adds a PPI or histamine receptor 2-blocker to bismuth-based triple therapy, usually achieves an eradication rate of 90% when used as an alternative first-line therapy but the efficacy decreases when used as a rescue therapy. Several new triple therapies that may be used as alternative and/or rescue therapies have been evaluated. Among these are furazolidone-based (furazolidone plus an antibiotic and a bismuth salt, a PPI or RBC), fluoroquinolone-based (levofloxacin or moxifloxacin plus an antibiotic and a PPI) and ecabet sodium-based (ecabet plus two antibiotics) triple therapies. Recently, rifabutin has been used in combination with a PPI and amoxycillin as a rescue therapy, with satisfactory eradication rates. In addition, a number of new antimicrobial agents are currently under investigation in in vitro studies but the clinical values of these agents needs to be confirmed.

Review article: Helicobacter pylori "rescue" regimen when proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapies fail

Even with the currently most effective treatment regimens, about 10-20% of patients will fail to obtain eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. Therefore, in designing a treatment strategy, we should not focus on the results of primary therapy alone, but also on the final (overall) eradication rate. The choice of second-line treatment depends on which treatment was used initially, as re-treatment with the same regimen is not recommended. Therefore, it is not necessary to perform culture after the first eradication failure. Assessment of the sensitivity of H. pylori to antibiotics only after failure of the second treatment is suggested in clinical practice. Different possibilities of empirical treatment have been suggested. After failure of proton pump inhibitor-amoxicillin-clarithromycin, quadruple therapy has generally been used. More recently, replacement of the proton pump inhibitor and the bismuth compound by ranitidine bismuth citrate has also achieved good results. After proton pump inhibitor-amoxicillin-nitroimidazole failure, re-treatment with proton pump inhibitor-amoxicillin-clarithromycin has been proven to be effective. Finally, first-line treatment should not combine clarithromycin and metronidazole in the same regimen, because of the problem of resistance to both antibiotics. Recently, rifabutin-based rescue therapies have been shown to constitute an encouraging strategy for eradication failures, as they are effective against H. pylori strains resistant to antibiotics.

Strategy for retreatment of therapeutic failure of eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapy consisting of a PPI, amoxicillin (A) and clarithromycin (C) or metronidazole (M) provides an eradication rate ranging from 80 to 90%. However, there have been few controlled studies with regard to the most effective regimen to re-treat patients after failure of the first-line therapy. Accordingly, we retrospectively reviewed our experiences and compared regimens with different combinations of antimicrobials to determine the optimal retreatment regimen.

METHODS

Out of 133 patients who had received second-line therapy after failure of first-line PPI/AC therapy, we selected, for review, patients who took the prescribed drugs for first-line therapy equal to, or more than 80%. As a result, data on 114 patients (83 males and 31 females; mean age 49.1 +/- 13.0 years; peptic ulcer n = 89; non-ulcer dyspepsia, n = 25) were eligible for evaluation. They had either repeated the PPI/AC regimen (n = 34; 5-14 days), or had been administered the PPI/AM regimen (n = 80; 10 days). The cure rates of the two regimens were compared.

RESULTS

The eradication rates for second-line therapy with the PPI/AC regimen versus the PPI/AM regimen were 52.9% (95% CI, 35-70) versus 81.3% (95% CI, 71-89) by intention-to-treat analysis (P < 0.01), and 62.1% (95% CI, 42-79) versus 91.4% (95% CI, 81-97) by per-protocol analysis (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The eradication rate for the PPI/AM retreatment regimen was significantly higher than for the repeated PPI/AC regimen, suggesting that a 10-day PPI/AM regimen can be recommended as a retreatment regimen for patients who had first-line eradication therapy by PPI/AC regimens.