Levofloxacin in first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection

Quinolone-based first, second and third-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a very common bacterium that infects about 50% of the world population in urban areas and over 90% of people living in rural and developing countries. Fluoroquinolones, a class of antimicrobials, have been extensively used in eradication regimens for H. pylori. Levofloxacin is the most commonly used, and in second-line regimens, is one of the most effective options. However, an increasing resistance rate of H. pylori to fluoroquinolones is being observed, that will likely affect their effectiveness in the near future. Other novel fluoroquinolone molecules, such as moxifloxacin, sitafloxacin, gatifloxacin and gemifloxacin, have been proposed and showed encouraging results in vitro, although data on their clinical use are still limited. Further studies in large sample trials are needed to confirm their safety and efficacy profile in clinical practice.

Levofloxacin and proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

Standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection fails in up to one quarter of patients. Levofloxacin-based triple therapy may be more efficacious.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper was to compare levofloxacin and proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy with standard triple therapy for H. pylori infection.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Ovid were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing levofloxacin and proton pump inhibitor-based therapy with standard triple therapy in treatment-naive patients with H. pylori infection until August 2013.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials involving 2676 patients (1357 in the levofloxacin group and 1319 in the control group) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio by intention-to-treat analysis and by per protocol analysis in the levofloxacin regimen versus standard regimen was 1.28 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.85] and 1.23 (95% CI: 0.82-1.84) by the random effects model, respectively. There was no statistical significance of the incidence of total side effects between the groups, but levofloxacin-based therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of taste disturbance compared with standard third therapy.

CONCLUSION

Levofloxacin-based therapy was as safe and effective as triple therapy for H. pylori infection and could be considered as an additional treatment option. However, more rigorous research is required to accurately assess the role of levofloxacin in eradicating H. pylori infection.

Levofloxacin-based first-line therapy versus standard first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

First-line levofloxacin-based treatments eradicate Helicobacter pylori with varying success. We examined the efficacy and safety of first-line levofloxacin-based treatment in comparison to standard first-line therapy for H pylori eradication.

Materials and Methods

We searched literature databases from Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Randomized Controlled Trials through March 2013 for randomized controlled trials comparing first-line levofloxacin and standard therapy. We included randomized controlled trials conducted only on naïve H pylori infected patients in adults. A systematic review was conducted. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.2. Treatment effect was determined by relative risk with a random or fixed model by the Mantel-Haenszel method.

Results

Seven trials were identified with 888 patients receiving 7 days of first-line levofloxacin and 894 treated with standard therapy (Amoxicillin, Clarithromycin and proton pump inhibitor) for 7 days. The overall crude eradication rate in the Levofloxacin group was 79.05% versus 81.4% in the standard group (risk ratio 0.97; 95% CI; 0.93, 1.02). The overall dropout was 46 (5.2%) in the levofloxacin group and 52 (5.8%) for standard therapy. The dizziness was more common among group who took Levofloxacin based treatment and taste disturbance was more common among group who took standard therapy. Meta-analysis of overall adverse events were similar between the two groups with a relative risk of 1.06 (95% CI 0.72, 1.57).

Conclusion

Helicobacter pylori eradication with 7 days of Levofloxacin-based first line therapy was safe and equal compared to 7 days of standard first-line therapy.

Safety and efficacy of 1-week levofloxacin-based triple therapy in first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori-related peptic ulcer disease in Kashmir, India

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is no ideal therapy for eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of 1-week triple therapy with rabeprazole, levofloxacin, and tinidazole in a metronidazole resistance prevalent region for eradicating H. pylori infection in patients with gastroduodenal ulcers.

METHODS

This was an open-label, prospective study. Consecutive patients with endoscopy-proven duodenal or gastric ulcer and who were H. pylori-positive were treated with levofloxacin 500 mg once a day, rabeprazole 20 mg twice a day, and tinidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by rabeprazole 20 mg OD for 8 weeks. Endoscopy was repeated 8 weeks after the end of therapy to check for ulcer healing and H. pylori status.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-one patients with gastroduodenal ulcers (duodenal 118, and gastric 13) were included. Drug compliance was 97.7 %. The eradication rate of H. pylori by intention-to-treat analysis was 85.5 % (95 % confidence interval 79.5-91.5) (112 of 131 patients) and by per-protocol analysis was 91.8 % (95 % confidence interval 86.9-96.7) (112 of 122 patients). Adverse effects were reported in 17 %: abdominal pain in 3.05 %, metallic taste in 6.87 %, and nausea and vomiting in 4.58 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Levofloxacin-tinidazole-based triple therapy was highly effective and safe as a first-line regimen in Indian patients with gastroduodenal ulcer disease associated with H. pylori infection. The regimen was well tolerated.

Levofloxacin versus clarithromycin in a 10 day triple therapy regimen for first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication: a single-blind randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence that the standard triple therapy against Helicobacter pylori infection is losing clinical effectiveness. A triple therapy regimen with levofloxacin, amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor has been reported to be effective and well tolerated, and this regimen has been suggested as an alternative first-line treatment. The aim of this single-blind randomized clinical trial was to compare the eradication success of two first-line triple therapy regimens in the north of Spain: clarithromycin, amoxicillin and omeprazole (CAO) versus levofloxacin, amoxicillin and omeprazole (LAO).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 250 consecutive patients diagnosed by conventional methods with H. pylori infection were randomized into one of two 10 day therapeutic regimens: standard CAO (n = 128) or LAO (n = 122). Eradication was confirmed by the (13)C-urea breath test. Adverse effects and compliance were also assessed. The clinical trial registration number was HPL08001HCLAD (EudraCT: 2008-001892-31).

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat cure rates were: CAO, 75.0% (96/128; 95% CI: 66.6%-82.2%) and LAO, 82.8% (101/122; 95% CI: 74.9%-89.0%). Per-protocol cure rates were: CAO, 78.0% (96/123; 95% CI: 69.7%-85.0%) and LAO, 83.1% (98/118; 95% CI: 75.0%-89.3%). There were no statistically significant differences in effectiveness between the two regimens. In addition, no relevant differences in compliance or adverse effects were demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

Levofloxacin-based treatment for H. pylori infection did not improve upon the eradication rate of the standard clarithromycin-based triple therapy in this study. This may reflect the progressive increase in in vitro resistance rates to levofloxacin observed in our region.

Rescue Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Infection 2012

Helicobacter pylori infection is the main cause of gastritis, gastroduodenal ulcer disease, and gastric cancer. After 30 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. In designing a treatment strategy, we should not only 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 2nd-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 3rd-line "rescue" option. 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.

Improving compliance with helicobacter pylori eradication therapy: when and how?

Compliance with therapy is the single most important factor in Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication. Poorer levels of compliance with therapy are associated with significantly lower levels of eradication. Numerous factors can contribute to achieving good levels of compliance. These include the complexity and duration of treatment. It is also important that the physician is motivated to ensure eradication is confirmed and the patient is sufficiently informed to empower him or her to achieve high levels of compliance. Compliance is also contingent on medication regimes that are simple, safe, tolerable and efficacious. The opportunity to improve compliance exists at every point of contact between the patient and the medical services. Experts and opinion leaders in the field can play a role by ensuring that physicians are educated and motivated enough to encourage and support compliance with H. pylori eradication therapy. Both patients and physicians need to be aware of the importance of the bacterium in causing disease. The importance of the doctor-patient relationship is paramount. Pragmatic strategies that may be of assistance may come in the form of polypills, combined Blister Packs, adjuvant therapies and modified release compounds. Colleagues such as pharmacists and nurse specialists can also play an important role and should be actively engaged. Structured aftercare and follow up offers the best chance for ensuring compliance and subsequent eradication of the H. pylori pathogen.

Should quinolones come first in Helicobacter pylori therapy?

New generations of fluoroquinolones, like levofloxacin and moxifloxacin, exhibit a broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and have been successfully introduced into the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Based on a large body of evidence, current guidelines recommend the use of levofloxacin- or moxifloxacin-containing proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) triple therapies in second-line or rescue treatment of H. pylori infection. The efficacy of standard PPI triple therapies has substantially declined during the last decade, mainly due to increasing resistance against the key antibiotics clarithromycin and metronidazole. Therefore, alternative strategies for first-line therapy of H. pylori infection have been evaluated in a considerable number of clinical trials including sequential regimens, nonbismuth quadruple regimens, and quinolone-containing PPI triple therapy regimens. The aim of this paper is to summarize the current body of evidence of levofloxacin- and moxifloxacin-containing regimens in first-line treatment of H. pylori infection, and to discuss the risks and benefits of these strategies in the light of increasing resistance of H. pylori to quinolones.

Comparison of the once-daily levofloxacin-containing triple therapy with the twice-daily standard triple therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication: a prospective randomised study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Simple compound of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy may improve drug compliance of patients. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a simple combination containing levofloxacin 7-day once-daily with standard twice-daily triple therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomised, open-label trial. A total of 189 consecutive patients diagnosed with peptic ulcer and H. pylori infection were enrolled. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: LEC group--levofloxacin 500 mg, esomeprazole 40 mg and clarithromycin 500 mg once daily for 7 days; AEC group--amoxicillin 1 g, esomeprazole 40 mg and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for 7 days.

RESULTS

There were 90 patients in the LEC group and 99 patients in the AEC group. By intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, the H. pylori eradication rate was 78.9% [71/90; 95% confidence interval (CI), 70.3-87.5%] and 83.5% (71/85; 95% CI, 75.5-91.6%) respectively, in the LEC group; and 74.8% (74/99; 95% CI, 66.0-83.5%) and 86.0% (74/86; 95% CI, 78.6-93.5%) respectively, in the AEC group. The incidence and tolerability of side effects were similar between these two groups.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and tolerability of once-daily levofloxacin-containing triple therapy are equal to those of the standard twice-daily triple therapy in this study. However, none of the treatment regimens evaluated achieved enough eradication efficacies to be considered as a recommendable first-line treatment.

Helicobacter pylori first-line treatment and rescue option containing levofloxacin in patients allergic to penicillin

AIM

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of Helicobacter pylori first-line treatment (omeprazole-clarithromycin-metronidazole) and second-line rescue option (omeprazole-clarithromycin-levofloxacin) in patients allergic to penicillin.

PATIENTS

Prospective multicenter study including consecutive patients allergic to penicillin. Therapy regimens: First-line treatment (50 patients): Omeprazole (20mg b.i.d.), clarithromycin (500 mg b.i.d.) and metronidazole (500 mg b.i.d.) for 7 days. Second-line treatment (15 therapy failures out of the aforementioned 50 patients): Omeprazole (20mg b.i.d.), clarithromycin (500 mg b.i.d.) and levofloxacin (500 mg b.i.d.) for 10 days.

OUTCOME VARIABLE

Negative (13)C-urea breath test 8 weeks after completion of treatment.

RESULTS

(1) First-line treatment (omeprazole-clarithromycin-metronidazole): Per-protocol and intention-to-treat eradication rates were 55% (27/49; 95%CI=40-70%) and 54% (27/50; 95%CI=39-69%). Compliance with treatment and follow-up was complete in 98% of cases (one patient was not compliant due to nausea). Adverse events were reported in 5 patients (10%): 4 nausea, 1 diarrhoea. (2) Second-line treatment (omeprazole-clarithromycin-levofloxacin): Per-protocol and intention-to-treat eradication rates were both 73% (11/15; 95%CI=45-92%). Compliance with treatment and follow-up was complete in all the cases. Adverse events were reported in 4 patients (20%), which did not prevent the completion of treatment: Mild nausea (2 patients), and vomiting and myalgias/arthralgias (1 patient).

CONCLUSION

In H. pylori infected patients allergic to penicillin, the generally recommended first-line treatment with omeprazole, clarithromycin and metronidazole has low efficacy for curing the infection. On the other hand, a levofloxacin-containing regimen (together with omeprazole and clarithromycin) represents an encouraging second-line alternative in the presence of penicillin allergy.

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.

Prevalence of primary fluoroquinolone resistance among clinical isolates of Helicobacter pylori at a University Hospital in Southern Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Fluoroquinolone-containing therapy is effective in eradicating Helicobacter pylori. However, the resistance rate of H. pylori to fluoroquinolones in Taiwan has not yet been reported. In this study, we aimed to investigate the susceptibility to antibiotics commonly used in eradication schedules and fluoroquinolones in H. pylori.

METHODS

A total of 210 clinical isolates of H. pylori were collected from April 1998 to September 2007 from patients in southern Taiwan. The in vitro activities of six antimicrobial agents were determined by the agar dilution method and Etest. The mutations in quinolone resistance-determining regions of gyrA and gyrB were investigated by direct sequencing.

RESULTS

Overall, 5.7% of the isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin. The resistance rate to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, and tetracycline was 1.0% (two of 210), 9.5% (20 of 210), 27.6% (58 of 210), and 0.5% (one of 210), respectively. The resistance rate to either ciprofloxacin or to levofloxacin increased from 2.8% (1998-2003) to 11.8% (2004-2007). The mutations in gyrA at N87 or D91 had an impact on primary fluoroquinolone resistance in H. pylori. Garenoxacin, but not moxifloxacin, had a good in vitro inhibitory effect against ciprofloxacin/levofloxacin-resistant strains compared with objective minimal inhibitory concentration values.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug resistance to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin in H. pylori collected from 2004 to 2007 increased significantly compared with resistance level observed during 1998-2003. The continuous surveillance of quinolone resistance among H. pylori is important in this area.

“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.

H pylori eradication: A randomized prospective study of triple therapy with or without ecabet sodium

AIM: To investigate whether adding ecabet sodium to the standard triple therapy for H pylori infection improve eradication rate.

METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-seven H pylori-infected patients were randomly assigned to standard triple therapy (group A, n = 129) or triple therapy plus ecabet sodium (group B, n = 128). Successful eradication was defined as a negative ¹³C-urea breath test 6-8 wk after completion of treatment.

RESULTS: After completion of therapy, 194/257 patients showed negative ¹³C-urea breath test results. According to intention-to-treat analysis, the infection was eradicated in 93/129 (72.1%) patients in group A and 101/128 (78.9%) in group B (P = 0.204). Per-protocol analysis showed successful eradication in 93/118 (78.8%) patients from group A and 101/114 (88.6%) from group B (P = 0.044). There were no significant differences in the side effects experienced by the patients in the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the addition of ecabet sodium improves the efficacy of the standard triple therapy for H pylori.