Search

Introduction: Antibiotic resistance is one of the main factors that determine the efficacy of treatments to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of first-line and rescue treatments against H. pylori in Europe according to antibiotics resistance., Methods: Prospective, multicenter, international registry on the management of H. pylori (European Registry on H. pylori Management). All infected and culture-diagnosed adult patients registered in the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology-Research Electronic Data Capture from 2013 to 2021 were included., Results: A total of 2,852 naive patients with culture results were analyzed. Resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones was 22%, 27%, and 18%, respectively. The most effective treatment, regardless of resistance, were the 3-in-1 single capsule with bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline (91%) and the quadruple with bismuth, offering optimal cure rates even in the presence of bacterial resistance to clarithromycin or metronidazole. The concomitant regimen with tinidazole achieved an eradication rate of 99% (90/91) vs 84% (90/107) with metronidazole. Triple schedules, sequential, or concomitant regimen with metronidazole did not achieve optimal results. A total of 1,118 non-naive patients were analyzed. Resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones was 49%, 41%, and 24%, respectively. The 3-in-1 single capsule (87%) and the triple therapy with levofloxacin (85%) were the only ones that provided encouraging results., Discussion: In regions where the antibiotic resistance rate of H. pylori is high, eradication treatment with the 3-in-1 single capsule, the quadruple with bismuth, and concomitant with tinidazole are the best options in naive patients. In non-naive patients, the 3-in-1 single capsule and the triple therapy with levofloxacin provided encouraging results., (Copyright © 2023 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: The recommended schedule for single capsule bismuth quadruple therapy (scBQT, Pylera) includes a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) two times a day and three scBQT capsules four times a day. Four times a day treatments are inconvenient and reduce adherence. In contrast, adherence improves with three times a day schedules. In clinical practice, many gastroenterologists use four capsule scBQT three times a day. However, the effectiveness and safety of this latter approach remain uncertain., Aim: To assess the effectiveness and safety of scBQT administered three times a day in the patients included in the European Registry on Helicobacter pylori Management (Hp-EuReg)., Methods: All Spanish adult patients registered in the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database from June 2013 to March 2021 receiving 10-day scBQT were analysed. Modified intention-to-treat effectiveness, adherence and the safety of scBQT given three times a day were calculated and compared with the four times a day schedule. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine independent factors predicting cure of the infection., Results: Of the 3712 cases, 2516 (68%) were four times a day and 1196 (32%) three times a day. Mean age was 51 years, 63% were women and 15% had a peptic ulcer. The three times a day schedule showed significantly better overall cure rates than four times a day (1047/1112, 94%; 95% CI 92.7 to 95.6 vs 2207/2423, 91%; 95% CI 89.9 to 92.2, respectively, p=0.002). Adherence and safety data were similar for both regimens. In the multivariate analysis, three times a day dosage, first-line therapy, use of standard or high-dose PPIs and adherence over 90% were significantly associated with cure of the infection., Conclusions: ScBQT prescribed three times a day was more effective than the traditional four times a day schedule. No differences were observed in treatment adherence or safety., Competing Interests: Competing interests: XC has received research grants and fees for lectures from Allergan. JPG has served as speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from Mayoly Spindler, Allergan, Diasorin, Gebro Pharma and Richen. OPN received research funding from Allergan and Mayoly Spindler. Dr Bordin served as a lecturer for Astellas, AstraZeneca, KRKA, and Abbott. FM is a consultant for PHATHOM and DaVoltera and has received grants from Allergan, bioMerieux and Mobidiag. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and aims: Several methods are available to diagnose Helicobacter pylori infection. Our objective was to evaluate the tests used for both the initial diagnosis and the confirmation of eradication after treatment in Europe. Methods: The European Registry on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection is an international, multicentre, prospective, non-interventional registry aiming to evaluate the management of Helicobacter pylori-infected patients in Europe. Countries with at least 100 cases registered from June 2013 to April 2021, and with a validated diagnostic method were analysed. Data were quality reviewed. Results: A total of 34,920 adult patients from 20 countries were included (mean age 51 years; 61% women). To establish the initial diagnosis, invasive tests were performed in 19,801 (71%) patients, non-invasive in 11,369 (41%), and both in 3437 (12%). The most frequent were histology (n = 11,885; 43%), a rapid urease test (n = 10,636; 38%) and an urea breath test (n = 7577; 27%). According to the age, invasive tests were indicated in 11,179 (77%) ≥50 years, and in 8603 (65%) <50 years. Depending on the country, the use of invasive tests ranged from 29–99% in <50 years to 60–99% in ≥50. Most of the tests used to confirm eradication were non-invasive (n = 32,540; 93%), with the urea breath test being the most frequent (n = 32,540; 78%). In 2983 (9%) post-treatment tests, histology (n = 1887; 5%) or a rapid urease test (n = 1223; 4%) were performed. Conclusion: A great heterogeneity was observed for the initial diagnosis and confirmation of the eradication. The reasons for the apparent lack of adherence to the clinical guidelines should be further explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]