Background Favorable outcomes in treating H pylori infection using “dual therapy (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin four times daily)” have attracted widespread attention. However, there are few reports, and the study results lack agreement. This study aimed to compare the eradication rate, safety, and compliance of naïve‐treatment patients with H pylori infection on “dual therapy” with those on “triple plus bismuth (TPB) therapy.” Methods This is a non‐inferior randomized controlled trial conducted on 760 patients with H pylori infection. The participants were randomly assigned to two eradication groups: dual therapy (esomeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 750 mg four times daily) and TPB therapy (esomeprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and bismuth potassium citrate 220 mg twice daily) for 14 days. Safety and compliance were assessed within 3 days after eradication. Urea breath test was performed about 8 weeks after eradication to evaluate outcome. Antibiotic resistance and CYP2C19 polymorphism were determined. Results Compared with TPB therapy, dual therapy had significantly higher eradication rates in intention‐to‐treat (87.1% vs 80.5%, rate difference 6.6%), modified intention‐to‐treat (90.9% vs 85.5%, 5.5%) and per‐protocol (92.4% vs 87.8%, 4.7%) analyses, respectively. Adverse reactions in dual therapy group were significantly lower than TPB therapy group (17.6% vs 25.5%, P = .008), and dual therapy group had better compliance (96.3% vs 92.3%, P = .019). Antibiotic resistance and poor compliance were also associated with treatment failure. Conclusions Dual therapy (esomeprazole and amoxicillin four times daily) was non‐inferior to, and even superior to TPB therapy as first‐line H pylori eradication.

Background: Ubiquitous and conserved Hsp70 heat shock proteins play key roles in protein folding. Results: DnaK, a model Hsp70, forms a specific dimer, and mutations on the dimer interfaces compromise both chaperone activity and Hsp40 interaction. Conclusion: Dimerization of DnaK is required for the efficient interaction with Hsp40. Significance: Our studies shed light on the molecular mechanism of the Hsp70 chaperone machinery.

Background: Systematic reviews suggested that the eradication efficacy of PPIamoxicillin dual therapy is similar to that of other commonly used regimens. However, it might be affected by the medication frequency. Basic and clinical studies have shown that dual therapy administered four-times daily has a reliable pathophysiological basis and could achieve satisfactory efficacy. Therefore, a systematic review of RCTs of dual therapy and other regimens was conducted to clarify whether dual therapy is superior to guidelines recommended regimens. Materials and Methods:The RCTs comparing dual therapy with other regimens were subjected to meta-analysis to evaluate the eradication rate, adverse reactions, and compliance using a random-effects model. Results:Dual therapy administered four-times daily had a higher eradication rate than other regimens (intention-to-treat analysis: 89.7% vs 84.6%, OR: 1.52, 95%CI 1.08-2.14, p = 0.02; per-protocol analysis: 92.6% vs 88.2%, OR: 1.54, 95%CI 1.01-2.34, p = 0.04). In first-line therapy, according to intention-to-treat analysis, the eradication rate of dual therapy was higher than other regimens (89.8% vs 84.2%, OR: 1.63, 95%CI 1.02-2.61, p = 0.04). In per-protocol analysis, dual therapy showed better efficacy than others (92.9% vs 88.3%, OR: 1.68, 95% CI 0.98-2.89, p = 0.06), but not significantly. In salvage treatment, no significant difference was detected. The safety of dual therapy was significantly better than other regimens (19.6% vs 36.7%, p < 0.01), but no difference was observed in compliance (p = 0.58). Conclusion:PPI-amoxicillin dual therapy administered four-times daily has better efficacy and safety in H. pylori eradication than current guidelines recommended regimens, especially in first-line therapy, and mainly in Asia.

The development of genetic engineering in the 1970s marked a new frontier in genome-editing technology. Gene-editing technologies have provided a plethora of benefits to the life sciences. The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR associated protein 9 (CRISPR/ Cas9) system is a versatile technology that provides the ability to add or remove DNA in the genome in a sequence-specific manner. Serious efforts are underway to improve the efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 targeting and thus reduce off-target effects. Currently, various applications of CRISPR/Cas9 are used in cancer biology and oncology to perform robust site-specific gene editing, thereby becoming more useful for biological and clinical applications. Many variants and applications of CRISPR/Cas9 are being rapidly developed. Experimental approaches that are based on CRISPR technology have created a very promising tool that is inexpensive and simple for developing effective cancer therapeutics. This review discusses diverse applications of CRISPR-based gene-editing tools in oncology and potential future cancer therapies.