[Breath tests as a noninvasive diagnostic method in Helicobacter pylori infection]

There are several diagnostic methods for Helicobacter pylori infection, some of them need an endoscopic procedure and biopsy to be performed (invasive) like the rapid urease test, culture and histology. Recently non invasive, specific, sensible, easy to perform and patient's well accepted methods had been developed known as breath test, based on the hydrolysis of labelled urea by Helicobacter pylori urease enzyme, to release ammonia and bicarbonate. Labelled CO2 reaches the bloodstream and the lungs, from where can be collected into the breath for quantification. Labelled urea has to options: 13C stable, non-radioactive and 14C unstable, radioactive. Breath test with 13C is based on the atomic mass difference between 12C and 13C and it is necessary a mass spectrometer and 40 minutes to perform it. Breath test with 14C has 1 uCi (one micro-curie) of radioactivity (1/300 of total radiation received in one year from the environment); the test takes 10 minutes and the samples are read in a beta counter. Both non-invasive tests had demonstrated sensitivity and specificity comparable to established "gold standards" for Helicobacter pylori infection diagnosis.

[Comparison of 2 schedules based on pantoprazole for eradication of Helicobacter pylori in patients with active duodenal ulcer]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of a triple vs dual pantoprazole based therapy to eradicate Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) in mexican patients with florid duodenal ulcer.

BACKGROUND

The treatment of peptic ulcer disease was revolutionized by the fact that H. pylori generally induces chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer disease and that the cure of the infection prevents ulcer relapses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

74 H. pylori positive patients with florid duodenal ulcer were randomized to receive either pantoprazole 40 mg bid in combination with clarithromycin 500 mg tid and amoxicillin 1 g bid (triple regimen PAC) or pantoprazole in combination with clarithromycin and placebo (dual regimen PC) during 14 days. To ensure complete ulcer healing all patients received an additional 2 weeks treatment with pantoprazole 40 mg od. 14C Urea Breath test (UBT) was the main criteria used to determine eradication rate with < 150 disintegrations per minute (DPM) to consider a patient eradicated. In all patients culture, antibiotic susceptibility (E-test) and histology were performed.

RESULTS

In the per protocol analysis (n = 66) the eradication rate was: PAC 93.5% vs PC 54.3% (p < 0.001). 76% of H. pylori strains were resistant to metronidazole. Tolerance and compliance were excellent in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Triple therapy (PAC) was shown to be superior to dual therapy (PC) for H. pylori eradication in mexican patients with florid duodenal ulcer.

[Clinical superiority of pantoprazole over ranitidine in the treatment of reflux esophagitis grade II and III. A prospective, double-blind, double-placebo study. Mexican clinical experience. Mexican Pantoprazole Study Group]

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast the efficacy and tolerability of a proton pump inhibitor, pantoprazole, to that of an H2 antagonist, ranitidine, in the treatment of patients with mild to severe reflux esophagitis.

BACKGROUND

Reflux esophagitis is a common illness affecting 5-10% of the world's population. Acid reflux plays a major role in the disease's genesis, as do esophageal and gastric motility disturbances.

METHODS

315 patients (intent to treat) with endoscopically confirmed reflux esophagitis (Savary-Miller (SM) stages II and III) were recruited to the study by 46 mexican investigators in nine centers. Patients received either pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily in this double blind, randomized, parallel group study. Patients not achieving complete endoscopic healing after four weeks of therapy received an additional four weeks of treatment. Drug tolerability was assessed by adverse event reporting during the study.

RESULTS

After four weeks pantoprazole therapy, 81% of patients with SM II and 67% of the patients with SM III were healed; in contrast ranitidine healed only 67 and 30% of the patients respectively, all results expressed on an per-protocol basis. After eight weeks therapy the healing rates for pantoprazole group increased to 94% and the ranitidine group to 74% (p = 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was less than 2% in both treatment groups, thus both therapies were found to be well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Pantoprazole is superior to ranitidine in the treatment of mild to severe reflux esophagitis and is equally well tolerated.