scholarly journals The status and progress of first-line treatment against Helicobacter pylori infection: a review

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628482198917
Author(s):  
Caiqi Liu ◽  
Yuan Wang ◽  
Jiaqi Shi ◽  
Chunhui Zhang ◽  
Jianhua Nie ◽  
...  

Helicobacter pylori (HP) is a major causative agent of chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer. HP is also engaged in the development of gastric cancer and gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma. It is an important pathogenic factor in various other systemic diseases, such as vitamin B12 deficiency, iron deficiency, and idiopathic thrombocytopenia. The current consensus is that unless there is a special reason, eradication therapy should be implemented whenever HP infection is found, and it is ideally successful the first time. International guidelines recommend that under certain conditions, treatment should be personalized based on drug susceptibility testing. However, drug susceptibility testing is often not available because it is expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to obtain living tissue. Each region has separately formulated guidelines or consensuses on empirical therapy. Owing to an increasing drug resistance rate in various places, the eradication rate of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) triple therapy and sequential therapy has been affected. These regimens are rarely used; the PPI triple especially has been abandoned in most areas. Currently, radical treatment regimens for HP involve bismuth-containing quadruple therapy and concomitant therapy. However, quadruple therapy has its own limitations, such as complex drug administration. To improve the effectiveness, safety, and compliance, many clinical studies have proposed useful modified regimens, which mainly include the modified bismuth-containing quadruple regimen, high-dose dual therapy, and vonoprazan-containing regimens. Studies have shown that these emerging regimens have acceptable eradication rates and safety, and are expected to become first-line treatments in empirical therapy. However, the problem of decline in the eradication rate caused by drug resistance has not been fundamentally solved. This review not only summarizes the effectiveness of mainstream regimens in the first-line treatment of HP infection with the currently increasing antibiotic resistance rates, but also summarizes the effectiveness and safety of various emerging treatment regimens.

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 214
Author(s):  
Seokin Kang ◽  
Yuri Kim ◽  
Ji Yong Ahn ◽  
Hwoon-Yong Jung ◽  
Nayoung Kim ◽  
...  

Background: Checking Helicobacter pylori susceptibility tests in the clinical setting before first-line treatment is considered difficult. We compared susceptibility-guided therapy (SGT) with empirical therapy (ET) as a first-line treatment containing clarithromycin and investigated the eradication rate using antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). Methods: 257 patients with H. pylori infection, with AST, performed before the eradication of clarithromycin-containing regimens were enrolled and divided into two groups: the SGT and ET groups. Results: Eradication rates in the SGT and ET groups were 85.4% and 58.4% (P < 0.01), respectively. In triple therapy (TT), eradication rates of the SGT and ET groups were 85.1% and 56.6% (P < 0.01), respectively. In sequential therapy (SET), eradication rates of the SGT and ET groups were 86.2% and 65.6% (P = 0.06), respectively. According to AST, TT had an eradication rate of 84.6% with strains susceptible to clarithromycin and amoxicillin and 11.1% with strains resistant to both. SET had an eradication rate of 89.5% with strains susceptible to clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and metronidazole, whereas it was 0% with strains resistant to clarithromycin and metronidazole. Conclusions: SGT as first-line treatment improved eradication rates of TT and SET by 28.5 (P < 0.01) and 20.6 (P = 0.06) percent points, respectively, compared with ET.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-93
Author(s):  
Metin Küçükazman ◽  
Ayse Kefeli ◽  
Sebahat Basyigit ◽  
Abdullah Özgür Yeniova ◽  
Yasar Nazligül ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 308-308
Author(s):  
Marieke Pape ◽  
Pauline A.J. Vissers ◽  
David Bertwistle ◽  
Laura McDonald ◽  
Hanneke W.M. Van Laarhoven ◽  
...  

308 Background: Similarities between esophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas have been identified in terms of genomic characteristics. There is however no consensus on the combined or stratified inclusion of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) within gastric cancer (GC) clinical trials. The aim of our study was to compare patient and tumor characteristics, first-line treatment regimens and overall survival (OS) of patients with EAC and GC. Methods: We selected patients with unresectable advanced and/or synchronous metastatic EAC (n = 1554) or GC (including junction tumors; n = 2095) diagnosed in the period 2015-2017 from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with a positive HER2 test result and/or receiving trastuzumab as a first-line treatment were excluded. Data on OS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves with Log-Rank test. Results: The EAC patient population had significantly more male patients (83% vs 66%), lower median age (68 vs 71 years) and higher median BMI (25.4 vs 24.5). Significant differences in location of metastases were identified, with higher percentages in non-regional lymph nodes (48% vs 28%), liver (50% vs 35%), lung (21% vs 9%) and bone (19% vs 7%) and lower in peritoneum (5% vs 42%), in EAC versus GC patients respectively. EAC patients more often received any type (supportive or active systemic) of treatment (76% vs 60%). Median OS was longer in EAC than GC patients (EAC: 4.8 vs GC: 4.1 months; p < 0.01). The percentages of patients receiving first-line systemic treatment were equal in both groups (43%). The number of patients receiving CapOx or FOLFOX was not significantly different (43% vs 47%). Carboplatin+paclitaxel was more frequently given in EAC versus GC (34% vs 3%), while EOX or ECC was given less frequently (12% vs 30%). No significant difference was observed in median OS between EAC and GC patients receiving first-line active systemic treatment (8.0 vs 7.6 months; p = 0.28). Conclusions: Patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, treatment regimens and OS differ between EAC and GC patients. Despite these differences, in patients receiving first-line active systemic treatment no significant differences in OS were found.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document