Comparison of standard triple therapy, sequential therapy and moxifloxacin-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: Patients' compliance and bacterial eradication rates

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a critical reappraisal of updated guidelines

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) treatment remains a challenge for the clinician, as no available therapy is able to cure the infection in all treated patients. In the last two decades, several antibiotic combinations have been proposed, including triple therapies, bismuth-free therapies (sequential, concomitant, hybrid regimens), and bismuth-based quadruple therapy. Some national and international guidelines on H. pylori management have recently been updated, recommending or discouraging the use of each of these therapeutic approaches, based mainly on the presumed pattern of primary antibiotic resistance in different geographic areas. We examined the recommendations on first-line therapies in the most recently updated guidelines worldwide, taking into account other data affecting the efficacy of a therapy regimen beyond the primary resistance pattern. Although several guidelines highlighted that the results achieved by an eradication therapy are population-specific and not directly transferable, it emerged that some therapy regimens are recommended or discouraged with no mention of the vital need for national data.

Sequential therapy for 10 days versus triple therapy for 14 days in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in the community and hospital populations: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

Significant heterogeneity was observed in previous trials that assessed the efficacies of sequential therapy for 10 days (S10) versus triple therapy for 14 days (T14) in the first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori. We aimed to compare the efficacy of S10 and T14 and assess the factors affecting their efficacies.

DESIGN

We conducted this open-label randomised multicentre trial in eight hospitals and one community in Taiwan. 1300 adult subjects with H pylori infection naïve to treatment were randomised (1:1) to receive S10 (lansoprazole and amoxicillin for the first 5 days, followed by lansoprazole, clarithromycin and metronidazole for another 5 days) or T14 (lansoprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin for 14 days). All drugs were given twice daily. Successful eradication was defined as negative ¹³C-urea breath test at least 6 weeks after treatment. Our primary outcome was the eradication rate by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Antibiotic resistance was determined by agar dilution test.

RESULTS

The eradication rates of S10 and T14 were 87.2% (567/650, 95% CI 84.4% to 89.6%) and 85.7% (557/650, 95% CI 82.8% to 88.2%) in the ITT analysis, respectively, and were 91.6% (556/607, 95% CI 89.1% to 93.4%) and 91.0% (548/602, 95% CI 88.5% to 93.1%) in the PP analysis, respectively. There were no differences in compliance or adverse effects. The eradication rates in strains susceptible and resistant to clarithromycin were 90.7% and 62.2%, respectively, for S10, and were 91.5% and 44.4%, respectively, for T14. The efficacy of T14, but not S10, was affected by CYP2C19 polymorphism.

CONCLUSIONS

S10 was not superior to T14 in areas with low clarithromycin resistance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01607918.

Gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma and Helicobacter pylori infection: a review of current diagnosis and management

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori)-associated gastritis is one of the most common infectious diseases in the United States, China and worldwide. Gastric mucosa-associated tissue lymphoma (MALT lymphoma) is a rare mature B-cell neoplasm associated with H. pylori infection that is curable by antibiotics therapy alone. The pathological diagnosis of gastric MALT lymphoma can be reached by histological examination, immunohistochemical staining and B-cell clonality analysis. H. pylori eradication is the choice of therapy for early-stage gastric MALT lymphoma. High response rates and long-term survival have been reported in refractory and localized diseases treated with low-dose radiation therapy. Systemic chemotherapy is recommended for advanced-stage gastric MALT lymphoma and cases with large B-cell lymphoma transformation. Recent advances in the pathological diagnosis and management of gastric MALT lymphoma are reviewed in this article.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review with meta-analysis: 10- or 14-day sequential therapy vs. 14-day triple therapy in the first line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Whether 10-day or 14-day sequential therapy is superior to 14-day triple therapy in the first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori remains controversial.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of 10-day or 14-day sequential therapy vs. 14-day triple therapy.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 10-day or 14-day sequential therapy and 14-day triple therapy as first-line treatment in adults were searched from the PubMed and Cochrane databases from 2000 to October 2015. Abstracts from international annual conferences were also searched. The primary and secondary outcomes were the eradication rate according to the intention-to-treat analysis and adverse effects, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 109 articles identified, 13 RCTs including 2749 patients in the sequential therapy group and 2424 patients in the 14-day triple therapy group were eligible. Overall, sequential therapy for 10 or 14 days was not significantly superior to 14-day triple therapy [Risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.08, P = 0.145]. However, there was significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 57.6%, P = 0.005). In the subgroup analysis of four trials, we found that 14-day sequential therapy was significantly more effective than 14-day triple therapy (RR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04-1.16, P = 0.002), and there was no significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%, P = 0.624) in this comparison. Sequential therapy given for 10 days was not superior to 14-day triple therapy (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98-1.09, P = 0.207). There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Sequential therapy given for 14 days, but not 10 days, was more effective than 14-day triple therapy as first-line treatment.

Sequential vs. prolonged 14-day triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: the meta-analysis may be influenced by 'geographical weighting'

BACKGROUND

Sequential therapy is a first-line regimen obtaining satisfactory Helicobacter pylori eradication. Triple therapy prolongation improves the success rate even if a recent meta-analysis showed satisfying results only for the 14-day regimen. Studies from Africa and North America were unavailable in previous meta-analyses.

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis comparing sequential vs. prolonged 14-day triple therapy with regard to 'geographic weighting' by considering subgroups analysis according to metronidazole/clarithromycin low and high resistance areas.

METHODS

Based on PRISMA recommendations, we considered all first-line clinical studies from 2003 to November 2014. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included by a search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Science Direct, EMBASE. Data on eradication rates were expressed as ITT. Risk ratio (RR), pooled RR and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method. Data were entered into RevMan 5.2 software (Nordic Cochrane Centre) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Databases identified 194 studies; seven met the inclusion criteria. Overall results showed a similar effectiveness of the two regimens considered (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.94-1.05; p = 0.75). In areas with high resistance to clarithromycin, sequential was superior to 14-day triple therapy (RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.90-1.00; p = 0.03). In areas with high metronidazole resistance, sequential and 14-day triple therapy were equivalent (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.91-1.08; p = 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

'Geographic weighting' could be the main factor affecting the lack of differences between sequential and 14-day triple therapy outcomes.

Current Paradigm and Future Directions for Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection

OPINION STATEMENT

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