ObjectiveSignificant heterogeneity was observed in previous trials that assessed the efficacies of sequential therapy for 10 days (S10) versus triple therapy for 14 days (T14) in the first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori. We aimed to compare the efficacy of S10 and T14 and assess the factors affecting their efficacies.DesignWe conducted this open-label randomised multicentre trial in eight hospitals and one community in Taiwan. 1300 adult subjects with H pylori infection naïve to treatment were randomised (1:1) to receive S10 (lansoprazole and amoxicillin for the first 5 days, followed by lansoprazole, clarithromycin and metronidazole for another 5 days) or T14 (lansoprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin for 14 days). All drugs were given twice daily. Successful eradication was defined as negative 13C-urea breath test at least 6 weeks after treatment. Our primary outcome was the eradication rate by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Antibiotic resistance was determined by agar dilution test.ResultsThe eradication rates of S10 and T14 were 87.2% (567/650, 95% CI 84.4% to 89.6%) and 85.7% (557/650, 95% CI 82.8% to 88.2%) in the ITT analysis, respectively, and were 91.6% (556/607, 95% CI 89.1% to 93.4%) and 91.0% (548/602, 95% CI 88.5% to 93.1%) in the PP analysis, respectively. There were no differences in compliance or adverse effects. The eradication rates in strains susceptible and resistant to clarithromycin were 90.7% and 62.2%, respectively, for S10, and were 91.5% and 44.4%, respectively, for T14. The efficacy of T14, but not S10, was affected by CYP2C19 polymorphism.ConclusionsS10 was not superior to T14 in areas with low clarithromycin resistance.Trial registration numberNCT01607918.
Properly designed empirical therapy, based on medication history, is an acceptable alternative to genotypic resistance-guided therapy for eradication of refractory H pylori infection after consideration of accessibility, cost, and patient preference. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01725906.
A simple molecular method guiding sequential therapy can achieve a high eradication rate in the third-line treatment of refractory H. pylori infection.
Background and objectiveWhether there is distinct pathogenesis in subgroups of functional dyspepsia (FD), the postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) and epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) remains controversial. We aimed to identify the risk factors of FD and its subgroups in the Chinese population.MethodsPatients with dyspepsia and healthy subjects who underwent gastric cancer screening were enrolled in this multicentre study from 2010 to 2012. All patients were evaluated by questionnaire, oesophagoduodenoscopy, histological examination and Helicobacter pylori tests. Subgroups of FD were classified according to the Rome III criteria. Psychiatric stress was assessed by the short form Brief Symptom Rating Scale. CagA and VacA genotypes were determined by PCR.ResultsOf 2378 patients screened for eligibility, 771 and 491 fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of uninvestigated dyspepsia and FD, respectively. 298 (60.7%) and 353 (71.9%) individuals were diagnosed with EPS and PDS, respectively, whereas 169 (34.4%) had the overlap syndrome. As compared with 1031 healthy controls, PDS and EPS shared some common risk factors, including younger age (OR 0.95; 99.5% CI 0.93 to 0.98), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (OR 6.60; 99.5% CI 3.13 to 13.90), anxiety (OR 3.41; 99.5% CI 2.01 to 5.77) and concomitant IBS (OR 6.89; 99.5% CI 3.41 to 13.94). By contrast, H. pylori (OR 1.86; 99.5% CI 1.01 to 3.45), unmarried status (OR 4.22; 99.5% CI 2.02 to 8.81), sleep disturbance (OR 2.56; 99.5% CI 1.29 to 5.07) and depression (OR 2.34; 99.5% CI 1.04 to 5.36) were associated with PDS. Moderate to severe antral atrophy and CagA positive strains were also more prevalent in PDS.ConclusionsDifferent risk factors exist among FD subgroups based on the Rome III criteria, indicating distinct aetiopathogenesis of the subdivisions that may necessitate different therapeutic strategies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.