Curing Helicobacter pylori infection remains challenging for clinicians, as no proposed first-line therapy achieves bacterial eradication in all treated patients so that several patients need two or more consecutive treatments. Bacterial culture with antibiotics susceptibility testing is largely unachievable in Italy, and empiric second-line and rescue therapies are generally used. This study aimed to identify what eradication regimens perform better in Italy, following first-line therapy failure. Methods: We performed a literature search on PubMed for studies on standard therapy regimens used as second-line or rescue treatments performed in adult patients. Studies including modified drug combinations were not considered. Both intention-to-treat and perprotocol analyses were computed for each therapy subgroup. Results: Data from 35 studies with a total of 4830 patients were eventually considered. As a second-line therapy, Pylera® (90.6%) and a sequential regimen (89.8%) achieved eradication rates significantly higher than other therapies. For third-line therapy, a levofloxacin-based regimen and Pylera® achieved comparable eradication rates (88.2% vs. 84.7%; p = 0.2). Among therapies used as fourth (or more) attempts, Pylera® and a rifabutin-based therapy achieved 77.4% and 66.4% cure rates, respectively (p = 0.013). A therapy sequence based on the type of first-line therapy used was proposed. Conclusions: Data obtained through our review indicate that standard therapies for H. pylori eradication can be used when following an appropriate sequence, allowing clinicians to improve the cure rate without resorting to bacterial culture.

Rescue Therapies for H. pylori Infection in Italy

Pavoni, Matteo;Saracino, Ilaria Maria;Fiorini, Giulia;Vaira, Dino
2021

Abstract

Curing Helicobacter pylori infection remains challenging for clinicians, as no proposed first-line therapy achieves bacterial eradication in all treated patients so that several patients need two or more consecutive treatments. Bacterial culture with antibiotics susceptibility testing is largely unachievable in Italy, and empiric second-line and rescue therapies are generally used. This study aimed to identify what eradication regimens perform better in Italy, following first-line therapy failure. Methods: We performed a literature search on PubMed for studies on standard therapy regimens used as second-line or rescue treatments performed in adult patients. Studies including modified drug combinations were not considered. Both intention-to-treat and perprotocol analyses were computed for each therapy subgroup. Results: Data from 35 studies with a total of 4830 patients were eventually considered. As a second-line therapy, Pylera® (90.6%) and a sequential regimen (89.8%) achieved eradication rates significantly higher than other therapies. For third-line therapy, a levofloxacin-based regimen and Pylera® achieved comparable eradication rates (88.2% vs. 84.7%; p = 0.2). Among therapies used as fourth (or more) attempts, Pylera® and a rifabutin-based therapy achieved 77.4% and 66.4% cure rates, respectively (p = 0.013). A therapy sequence based on the type of first-line therapy used was proposed. Conclusions: Data obtained through our review indicate that standard therapies for H. pylori eradication can be used when following an appropriate sequence, allowing clinicians to improve the cure rate without resorting to bacterial culture.
De Francesco, Vincenzo; Zullo, Angelo; Gatta, Luigi; Manta, Raffaele; Pavoni, Matteo; Saracino, Ilaria Maria; Fiorini, Giulia; Vaira, Dino
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
antibiotics-10-00525.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 865.55 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
865.55 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/864700
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact