Search

Introduction: Guidelines recommend that proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimens with clarithromycin not be used for Helicobacter pylori infection in areas where clarithromycin resistance is ≥15%, or in patients with prior macrolide use. Up-to-date information on local resistance patterns is limited, especially in the US. Here, we report resistance rates to antibiotics commonly used to treat H. pylori from a large study conducted in the US and Europe (pHalcon-HP)., Methods: Gastric mucosal biopsies were collected from adult participants with H. pylori infection during screening. Minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined via agar dilution for clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and metronidazole, with breakpoints ≥1 μg/mL, >0.125 μg/mL, and >8 μg/mL, respectively. Resistance rates were obtained for the US and Europe, and also for US subregions and participating European countries., Results: Resistance rates were established in isolates from 907 participants. Overall, 22.2% were resistant to clarithromycin, 1.2% to amoxicillin, and 69.2% to metronidazole. Resistance in the US and Europe was similar; metronidazole resistance was the most prevalent (50%-79%) and amoxicillin the least (≤5%). In all subregions, ≥15% of isolates were resistant to clarithromycin, except the UK (0/8 isolates). Among clarithromycin-resistant isolates, 75% were also metronidazole-resistant. Two US isolates were resistant to clarithromycin and amoxicillin; one of these was also metronidazole-resistant., Discussion: The resistance rates observed in this study argue against the continued empiric use of proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy containing clarithromycin, per treatment guidelines, and highlight the need for antibiotic resistance surveillance and novel treatment strategies for H. pylori infection in the US and Europe., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background and Aims: Recent guidelines dictate that all Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infected subjects should receive curative therapy. The efficacy of empirical regimens for H. pylori eradication might decline with bacterial, drug, and host factors. The necessity of a tailored therapy still remains controversial. Here we provide a meta-analysis of the current status of susceptibility-based (tailored) therapy in which susceptibility-based therapies were compared to the currently accepted choice of empiric therapy. In this rapidly closing era, neither the susceptibility nor empiric therapies were routinely optimized, such that we report the outcome of comparisons on the efficacy of unoptimized tailored vs. locally preferred empiric treatments., Methods: PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases were searched using suitable keywords. Individual and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the fixed- or random-effects model as appropriate. Heterogeneity was calculated employing the Cochrane Q test and I 2 values, whereas the possibility of publication bias was examined by constructing funnel plots. Additionally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Thirty-four studies were included with a total of 9613 patients. Tailored therapy proved superior to empiric treatment [OR 2.07 (95% CI 1.53-2.79)]. However, tailored therapy achieved eradication rates >90% in only 15 (44%) studies and >95% in only 6 (17.6%)., Conclusions: Although tailored therapy performed better than empiric treatment, the lack of optimization of therapies failed to reliably achieve high cure rates (>90%). These results emphasize that H. pylori infection, like other infectious diseases, should utilize the principles of antimicrobial stewardship in relation to treatment guidance., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: We described the presence of Helicobacter pylori (HP) and estimated the prevalence of primary and secondary resistance using molecular detection in gastric biopsies of Ecuadorian patients., Methods and Results: 66.7% (238/357) of the patients demonstrated the presence of HP using CerTest qPCR. Of these, 69.79% (104/149) were without previous HP eradication treatment and 64.42% (134/208) with prior HP eradication treatment. The mutation-associated resistance rate for clarithromycin was 33.64% (primary resistance) and 32.82% (secondary resistance), whereas that in levofloxacin the primary and secondary resistance was 37.38% and 42%, respectively. For tetracycline and rifabutin, primary and secondary resistance was 0%. Primary and secondary resistance for metronidazole and amoxicillin could not be evaluated by genotypic methods (PCR and sequencing)., Conclusions: The analysis of mutations in gyrA, 23S rRNA and 16S rRNA is useful to detect bacterial resistance as a guide for eradication therapy following failure of the first-line regimen., Significance and Impact of the Study: This study carried out in an Ecuadorian population indicates that the resistance of HP to first-line antibiotics is high, which may contribute to the high rates of treatment failure, and other treatment alternatives should be considered., (© 2021 The Society for Applied Microbiology.)

Background and Aim: Empirical therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is limited by increasing antibiotic resistance and suboptimal eradication rates. Studies of the relative effectiveness of susceptibility-guided therapy have produced conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether susceptibility-guided therapy is superior to empirical therapy for H. pylori infection., Methods: We searched articles listed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science through May 25, 2020, RCTs comparing susceptibility-guided versus empirical therapy for H. pylori infection. Outcomes, including effectiveness and safety, were analyzed in a meta-analysis., Results: Our final analysis included 16 studies, comprising 2374 patients who received susceptibility-guided therapy and 2451 patients who received empirical treatment. In previously untreated subjects, susceptibility-guided therapy was slightly more effective than empirical therapy (intent to treat risk ratio [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.21; P < 0.0001, I 2  = 75%). Susceptibility-guided therapy was superior to first-line clarithromycin-based triple therapy only when clarithromycin resistance exceeded 20% (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.30; P = 0.001, I 2  = 81%). Susceptibility-guided therapy was not more effective than empirical quadruple therapy (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.13; P = 0.759, I 2  = 80%). Three RCTs were performed exclusively among previously treated subjects, and were highly heterogeneous., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that susceptibility-guided treatment may be slightly superior to empirical first line triple therapy. Susceptibility- guided treatment does not appear to be superior to empirical first-line quadruple therapy or empirical rescue therapy., (© 2021 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)