Triple therapy with ranitidine, clarithromycin, and metronidazole in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori

Potent Gastric Acid Inhibition in Helicobacter pylori Eradication

At present, antisecretory drugs--foremost among them the proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)--represent a keystone in Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy. The present article shall first compare the role of PPIs as compared with histamine H2 receptor antagonists, both of them in the role of antibiotic-associated antisecretory therapy, and shall then address the contribution of each of the various PPIs that have been developed until the present time to the H. pylori eradication therapies. In summary, it may be concluded that PPIs are more effective overall than H2 receptor antagonists when the two groups of antisecretory drugs are given at the usual standard doses together with antibiotics with the intention of eradicating H. pylori infection. However, all PPIs (omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomeprazole) are equivalent when given together with two antibiotics to cure the infection.

Meta-analysis: proton pump inhibitors vs. H2-receptor antagonists--their efficacy with antibiotics in Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether proton pump inhibitors are superior to H2-receptor antagonists in Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens.

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of both antisecretors when co-prescribed with antibiotics.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials comparing proton pump inhibitors vs. H2-receptor antagonists with the same antibiotics were selected. Data sources included PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and abstracts from congresses up to January 2002. A meta-analysis was performed by combining the odds ratios.

RESULTS

Twenty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean eradication rates with proton pump inhibitors and H2-receptor antagonists plus antibiotics were 74% [95% confidence interval (CI), 71-76%] and 69% (95% CI, 66-71%), respectively. The odds ratio for this comparison was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.09-1.58). The number needed to treat with proton pump inhibitors to achieve eradication success, compared with H2-receptor antagonists, was 25. When studies prescribing very high doses of H2-receptor antagonists (two of the outliers) were excluded, the odds ratio (for proton pump inhibitors vs. H2-receptor antagonists) increased to 1.37, the number needed to treat decreased to 20 and the heterogeneity between the studies decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, proton pump inhibitors are more effective than H2-receptor antagonists when prescribed at usual doses with antibiotics to eradicate H. pylori infection.

Meta-analysis: proton pump inhibitor or H2-receptor antagonist for Helicobacter pylori eradication

AIM

To compare H2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors as adjuvants to triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication.

METHODS

H. pylori-infected patients with peptic ulcer were randomized to receive either 300 mg nizatidine or 30 mg lansoprazole plus 1 g amoxicillin and 500 mg clarithromycin taken b.d. for 7 days. H. pylori eradication was assessed 4 weeks after therapy. Using meta-analytical techniques, we combined the results of this study with other randomized controlled comparisons of H2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors as adjuvants to triple therapy.

RESULTS

One hundred and one patients were randomized. H. pylori eradication was 94% (47/50) [95% confidence interval (CI), 83-99%] (intention-to-treat) in the H2-receptor antagonist group vs. 86% (44/51) (95% CI, 74-94%) in the proton pump inhibitor group (P = 0.3). There has been a total of 12 similar studies (1415 patients). The overall efficacy was similar in intention-to-treat analysis: 78% (549/701) with H2-receptor antagonists vs. 81% (575/714) with proton pump inhibitors (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66-1.12). A non-significant trend favouring H2-receptor antagonist (79% vs. 69%; odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.71; P = 0.5) was seen in the comparison of clarithromycin-containing regimens. In contrast, in non-clarithromycin-containing trials, there was a slight, but significant, advantage with proton pump inhibitors (85% vs. 78%; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Overall, proton pump inhibitor and H2-receptor antagonist antisecretory agents appear to be similarly effective as adjuvants for H. pylori triple therapy. It is unlikely that the direct anti-H. pylori effect of proton pump inhibitors is responsible for their ability to enhance anti-H. pylori therapy.

Combination treatment with ranitidine is highly efficient against Helicobacter pylori despite negative impact of macrolide resistance

BACKGROUND

This double-blind, randomized study evaluated the efficacy of dual and triple therapies including ranitidine for treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dyspeptic patients (n = 105) with a positive rapid urease test formed the intention-to-treat population (ITT). All patients were assigned to 14 days treatment with ranitidine 300 mg b.i.d and clarithromycin 750 mg b.i.d. Group A (n = 53) also received a placebo twice daily, while group B (n = 52) received lymecycline 300 mg b.i.d. Treatment with ranitidine, 150 mg b.i.d, was continued for an additional 30 days. H. pylori infection was verified by culture. Twelve weeks after antibiotic treatment, H. pylori status was investigated by culture and 14C-urea breath test (UBT). The per-protocol (PP) group consisted of 73 patients (A, n = 38; B, n = 35).

RESULTS

Cure rates were 87% (95% C.I. = 72% to 94%) vs. 72% (95% C.I. = 58% to 83%) in the ITT-group and 89% (95% C.I. = 73% to 97%) vs. 87% (95% C.I. = 72% to 96%) in the PP-population (culture and UBT) when triple and dual therapies were compared. In all patients who were not cured, clarithromycin resistance of H. pylori was acquired. Side effects were experienced by 54% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The difference in efficacy between the two treatment regimens was not significant. However, the cure rates in this study are comparable to combination treatments with omeprazole. Treatment failures were due to acquired clarithromycin resistance.

Metronidazole. A therapeutic review and update

The nitroimidazole antibiotic metronidazole has a limited spectrum of activity that encompasses various protozoans and most Gram-negative and Gram-positive anaerobic bacteria. Metronidazole has activity against protozoans like Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia and Trichomonas vaginalis, for which the drug was first approved as an effective treatment. Anaerobic bacteria which are typically sensitive are primarily Gram-negative anaerobes belonging to the Bacteroides and Fusobacterium spp. Gram-positive anaerobes such as peptostreptococci and Clostridia spp. are likely to test sensitive to metronidazole, but resistant isolates are probably encountered with greater frequency than with the Gram-negative anaerobes. Gardnerella vaginalis is a pleomorphic Gram-variable bacterial bacillus that is also susceptible to metronidazole. Helicobacter pylori has been strongly associated with gastritis and duodenal ulcers. Classic regimens for eradicating this pathogen have included metronidazole, usually with acid suppression medication plus bismuth and amoxicillin. The activity of metronidazole against anaerobic bowel flora has been used for prophylaxis and treatment of patients with Crohn's disease who might develop an infectious complication. Treatment of Clostridium difficile-induced pseudomembraneous colitis has usually been with oral metronidazole or vancomycin, but the lower cost and similar efficacy of metronidazole, coupled with the increased concern about imprudent use of vancomycin leading to increased resistance in enterococci, have made metronidazole the preferred agent here. Metronidazole has played an important role in anaerobic-related infections. Advantages to using metronidazole are the percentage of sensitive Gram-negative anaerobes, its availability as oral and intravenous dosage forms, its rapid bacterial killing, its good tissue penetration, its considerably lower chance of inducing C. difficile colitis, and expense. Metronidazole has notable effectiveness in treating anaerobic brain abscesses. Metronidazole is a cost-effective agent due to its low acquisition cost, its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, an acceptable adverse effect profile, and its undiminished antimicrobial activity. While its role as part of a therapeutic regimen for treating mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections has been reduced by newer, more expensive combination therapies, these new combinations have not been shown to have any therapeutic advantage over metronidazole. Although the use of metronidazole on a global scale has been curtailed by newer agents for various infections, metronidazole still has a role for these and other therapeutic uses. Many clinicians still consider metronidazole to be the 'gold standard' antibiotic against which all other antibiotics with anaerobic activity should be compared.

Comparison of ranitidine and lansoprazole in short-term low-dose triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of two 1-week low-dose triple-therapy drug regimens involving antisecretory drugs for Helicobacter pylori infection. 99 patients with H. pylori infection were treated with either lansoprazole or ranitidine used together with clarithromycin and metronidazole.

METHODS

The drug combination and administration periods in the proton pump inhibitor group were lansoprazole 30 mg o.m., clarithromycin 200 mg b.d. and metronidazole 250 mg b.d., all given for 7 days (LCM group). The ranitidine group received ranitidine 150 mg b.d., clarithromycin 200 mg b.d. and metronidazole 250 mg b.d. also for 7 days (RCM group). The presence or absence of H. pylori was determined from gastric biopsy specimens taken from both the antrum and the body, by smear, culture and tissue section (Giemsa stain). Cure was defined as failure to find evidence of H. pylori infection 4 weeks after antimicrobial therapy had ended.

RESULTS

The cure of H. pylori infection was 88% in the LCM group (44 of 50; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 79-97%) and 92% in the RCM group (45 of 49; 95% CI = 84-99%). The incidence of adverse events was 16% and 18% for the two groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in cure rate and safety profiles were noted between the two regimens, suggesting that moderate acid inhibition using an H2-blocker is sufficient to achieve optimal H. pylori eradication.