A comparison between standard triple therapy and sequential therapy on eradication of Helicobacter pylori in uremic patients: A randomized clinical trial

Nutrition status and Helicobacter pylori infection in patients receiving hemodialysis

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) often develop gastrointestinal abnormalities over their long treatment period. In general, prognosis in such patients is poor due to the development of protein-energy wasting (PEW). Therefore, it is important to clarify the etiology of PEW and to establish better strategies to deal with this condition. Chronic Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection in the gastric mucosa has a close association with not only the development of peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer, but is also associated with abnormal plasma and gastric mucosal ghrelin levels that are seen in malnutrition. It is unclear whether H. pylori infection of the gastric mucosa is directly associated with prognosis in HD patients by affecting ghrelin levels. Recent studies show that the prevalence of H. pylori infection in HD patients is significantly lower than in subjects with normal renal function. In the natural history of H. pylori infection in HD patients, the prevalence of infection decreases as the length of time on HD increases. The severity of gastric mucosal atrophy has been suggested as the major determinant of ghrelin levels in these patients, and eradication therapy of H. pylori improves nutritional status by increasing serum cholinesterase and cholesterol levels, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate gastric mucosal atrophy. Prompt H. pylori eradication to inhibit the progress of gastric atrophy may be required to prevent this decrease in ghrelin levels and subsequent PEW and improve the prognosis of HD patients by improving their nutritional status.

First-Line Helicobacter pylori Eradication in Patients with Chronic Kidney Diseases in Taiwan

Aims

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection have a higher incidence of gastroduodenal diseases and therefore are recommended to receive eradication therapies. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a 7-day standard triple therapy in patients with CKD (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m²) and to investigate the clinical factors influencing the success of eradication.

Methods

A total of 758 patients with H. pylori infection receiving a 7-day standard first-line triple therapy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, were recruited. Patients were divided into two groups: CKD group (N = 130) and non-CKD group (N = 628).

Results

The eradication rates attained by the CKD and non-CKD groups were 85.4% and 85.7%, respectively, in the per-protocol analysis (p = 0.933). The eradication rate in CKD stage 3 was 84.5% (82/97), in stage 4 was 88.2% (15/17), and in those who received hemodialysis was 87.5% (14/16). There were no significant differences in the various stages of CKD (p = 0.982). The adverse events were similar between the two groups (3.1% versus 4.6%, p = 0.433). Compliance between the two groups was good (100.0% versus 99.8%, p = 0.649). There was no significant clinical factor influencing the H. pylori eradication rate in the non-CKD and CKD groups.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the H. pylori eradication rate and adverse rate in patients with CKD are comparable to those of non-CKD patients.

A Comparison between Hybrid Therapy and Standard Triple Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Eradication in Patients with Uremia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of peptic ulcer disease in hemodialysis patients is more than the general population. They are also more prone to complications including upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 14 days hybrid regimen with 14 days triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori ) eradication in hemodialysis patients.

METHODS

Forty hemodialysis patients with naïve H.pylori infection were randomized to receive either hybrid regimen (pantoprazole 40 mg + amoxicillin 500 mg, both twice a day during the first 7 days, followed by pantoprazole 40 mg + amoxicillin 500 mg + clarithromycin 500 mg + tinidazole 500 mg, all twice a day, for the second 7 days, or standard triple therapy including pantoprazole 40 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and amoxicillin 500 mg, all twice a day for 14 days. H.pylori eradication was assessed by fecal H.pylori antigen test 8 weeks after the treatment.

RESULTS

All the patients completed the study. According to both intention to treat and per-protocol analyses, H.pylori eradication rates were 100% (95% confidence interval (CI): 100) in those who received hybrid therapy and 70% (95% CI: 69.4 – 70.8) in those who were treated by standard triple therapy (p=0.02). Severe adverse effects were not reported by any patient; however, mild adverse effects were more frequent in those who received standard triple therapy (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Hybrid regimen could achieve ideal H.pylori eradication rates with low rates of adverse effects.

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.