Dataset Information

Global eradication rates for Helicobacter pylori infection: systematic review and meta-analysis of sequential therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To do a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing sequential therapy for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with pre-existing and new therapies, thus providing a glimpse of eradication success worldwide.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to May 2013; abstract books of major European, American, and Asian gastroenterological meetings.

Study selection

Randomised controlled trials in previously untreated adults, in which sequential therapy was compared with a pre-existing or new therapy.

Results

46 randomised controlled trials were reviewed and analysed. 5666 patients were randomised to sequential therapy and 7866 to other (established and new) treatments. The overall eradication rate of sequential therapy was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 82.1% to 86.4%). Sequential therapy was superior to seven day triple therapy (relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.25; I(2)=29.3%; number needed to treat 6, 95% confidence interval 5% to 7%), marginally superior to 10 day triple therapy (1.11, 1.04 to 1.19; I(2)= 67.2%; NNT 10, 7 to 15), but not superior to 14 day triple therapy (1.00, 0.94 to 1.06; I(2)=54.3%), bismuth based therapy (1.01, 0.95 to 1.06; I(2)=21.1%), and non-bismuth based therapy (0.99, 0.94 to 1.05; I(2)=52.3%). Data on eradication according to pre-treatment antimicrobial susceptibility testing were available in eight studies, and sequential therapy was able to eradicate 72.8% (61.6% to 82.8%) of the strains resistant to clarithromycin.

Conclusions

Eradication rates with pre-existing and new therapies for H pylori are suboptimal. Regional monitoring of resistance rates should help to guide treatment, and new agents for treatment need to be developed.

SUBMITTER: Gatta L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3736972 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses reported that probiotics improve the effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication during antibiotic therapy, while results regarding a possible reduction of side effects remained inconclusive. Moreover, the effectiveness of different strains of probiotics has not been studied so far. It is further conceivable that probiotics will produce additional effects only if antibiotics are relatively ineffective.MethodsThis meta-analysis includes eligible randomized controlled trials examining effects of probiotics supplementation on eradication rates (ER) and side effects, published up to May 2014. Sub-group analysis was performed to compare different probiotic strains and antibiotic therapies with different effectiveness in controls (ER <80% vs.>80%). Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Harbord's test. The quality of the trials was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.ResultsThirty-three RCTs involving a total of 4459 patients met the inclusion criteria in case of eradication rates of which 20 assessed total side effects in addition. Overall, the pooled eradication rate in probiotics supplementation groups was significantly higher than in controls (ITT analysis: RR 1.122, 95% CI 1.086-1.159, PP analysis: RR 1.114, 95% CI 1.070-1.159). Sub group-analysis could, however, confirm this finding only for four individual strains (Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei DN-114001, Lactobacillus gasseri, and Bifidobacterium infantis 2036) and for relatively ineffective antibiotic therapies. There was a significant difference between groups in the overall incidence of side effects (RR 0.735, 95% CI 0.598-0.902). This result was, however, only confirmed for non-blinded trials.ConclusionsThe pooled data suggest that supplementation with specific strains of probiotics compared with eradication therapy may be considered an option for increasing eradication rates, particularly when antibiotic therapies are relatively ineffective. The impact on side effects remains unclear and more high quality trials on specific probiotic strains and side effects are thus needed.