量身定制的幽门螺杆菌治疗比传统治疗更有效:一项随机对照试验

Adel Elrakeeb, Sawsan Eltayyeb, A. Elgazzar, A. Elgendy, M. Alboraie
{"title":"量身定制的幽门螺杆菌治疗比传统治疗更有效:一项随机对照试验","authors":"Adel Elrakeeb, Sawsan Eltayyeb, A. Elgazzar, A. Elgendy, M. Alboraie","doi":"10.4103/azmj.azmj_51_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and aims Tailored (culture and sensitivity) therapy has gained attention over recent years as an effective option for eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. The authors aimed to assess the efficacy of antibiotics sensitivity-guided therapy versus clarithromycin or levofloxacin triple therapies as the first-line therapy for H. pylori. Patients and methods Dyspeptic patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy were prospectively enrolled. Patients with positive H. pylori results by the rapid urease test were randomized to receive either antibiotics sensitivity-guided therapy or empirical clarithromycin or levofloxacin-based triple therapy for 14 days. Antimicrobial sensitivity tests for seven antibiotics (clarithromycin, amoxicillin, metronidazole, levofloxacin, tetracycline, nitrofurantoin, and rifampicin) were performed using the disk-diffusion method. Group A received antibiotics sensitivity-guided therapies that included esomeprazole plus two antibiotics for which the isolates were sensitive and group B received conventional therapies that included esomeprazole, amoxicillin plus clarithromycin or levofloxacin for 2 weeks. Eradication of H. pylori was checked using stool antigen 4 weeks after therapy. Results A total of 25 patients completed the study in each group. Both studied groups were matched for baseline characteristics. The most commonly used regimen in the antimicrobial sensitivity-based therapy was clarithromycin-based triple therapy (46.5%), followed by levofloxacin-based triple therapy and levofloxacin and nitrofurantoin plus esomeprazole. The association analysis demonstrated that, in the intention-to-treat populations, the H. pylori eradication rate was significantly higher in the antibiotic sensitivity-guided therapy group [85.7% (24/28) vs. 53.3% (16/30) in the conventional therapy group (P=0.035). In the per-protocol populations, the eradication rate was 96% for the sensitivity-guided therapy group and 64% for the conventional therapy group (P=0.005). The rates of adverse events were similar in both sensitivity-guided and conventional therapies, with no significant differences (P=0.527). Conclusions Culture-based eradication therapy demonstrated superior eradication rates than empirical therapy as a first-line therapy for H. pylori in a region with high rates of antimicrobial resistance.","PeriodicalId":7711,"journal":{"name":"Al-Azhar Assiut Medical Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":"379 - 385"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tailored Helicobacter pylori therapy is more effective than conventional therapy: a randomized-controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Adel Elrakeeb, Sawsan Eltayyeb, A. Elgazzar, A. Elgendy, M. Alboraie\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/azmj.azmj_51_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and aims Tailored (culture and sensitivity) therapy has gained attention over recent years as an effective option for eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. The authors aimed to assess the efficacy of antibiotics sensitivity-guided therapy versus clarithromycin or levofloxacin triple therapies as the first-line therapy for H. pylori. Patients and methods Dyspeptic patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy were prospectively enrolled. Patients with positive H. pylori results by the rapid urease test were randomized to receive either antibiotics sensitivity-guided therapy or empirical clarithromycin or levofloxacin-based triple therapy for 14 days. Antimicrobial sensitivity tests for seven antibiotics (clarithromycin, amoxicillin, metronidazole, levofloxacin, tetracycline, nitrofurantoin, and rifampicin) were performed using the disk-diffusion method. Group A received antibiotics sensitivity-guided therapies that included esomeprazole plus two antibiotics for which the isolates were sensitive and group B received conventional therapies that included esomeprazole, amoxicillin plus clarithromycin or levofloxacin for 2 weeks. Eradication of H. pylori was checked using stool antigen 4 weeks after therapy. Results A total of 25 patients completed the study in each group. Both studied groups were matched for baseline characteristics. The most commonly used regimen in the antimicrobial sensitivity-based therapy was clarithromycin-based triple therapy (46.5%), followed by levofloxacin-based triple therapy and levofloxacin and nitrofurantoin plus esomeprazole. The association analysis demonstrated that, in the intention-to-treat populations, the H. pylori eradication rate was significantly higher in the antibiotic sensitivity-guided therapy group [85.7% (24/28) vs. 53.3% (16/30) in the conventional therapy group (P=0.035). In the per-protocol populations, the eradication rate was 96% for the sensitivity-guided therapy group and 64% for the conventional therapy group (P=0.005). The rates of adverse events were similar in both sensitivity-guided and conventional therapies, with no significant differences (P=0.527). Conclusions Culture-based eradication therapy demonstrated superior eradication rates than empirical therapy as a first-line therapy for H. pylori in a region with high rates of antimicrobial resistance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7711,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Al-Azhar Assiut Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"379 - 385\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Al-Azhar Assiut Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/azmj.azmj_51_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Al-Azhar Assiut Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/azmj.azmj_51_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景和目的近年来,量身定制(培养和敏感性)疗法作为根除幽门螺杆菌感染的有效选择,引起了人们的关注。作者旨在评估抗生素敏感性指导治疗与克拉霉素或左氧氟沙星三联疗法作为幽门螺杆菌一线治疗的疗效。患者和方法前瞻性纳入接受食管胃十二指肠镜检查的消化不良患者。幽门螺杆菌快速尿素酶试验结果呈阳性的患者被随机分为两组,一组接受抗生素敏感性指导治疗,另一组接受基于克拉霉素或左氧氟沙星的经验性三联治疗,为期14天。采用纸片扩散法对7种抗生素(克拉霉素、阿莫西林、甲硝唑、左氧氟沙星、四环素、呋喃妥因和利福平)进行了耐药性试验。A组接受抗生素敏感性指导治疗,包括埃索美拉唑加两种分离株敏感的抗生素,B组接受常规治疗,包括艾索美拉、阿莫西林加克拉霉素或左氧氟沙星,持续2周。在治疗后4周使用粪便抗原检查幽门螺杆菌的根除情况。结果每组共有25例患者完成了研究。两个研究组的基线特征相匹配。在基于抗微生物敏感性的治疗中,最常用的方案是基于克拉霉素的三联疗法(46.5%),其次是基于左氧氟沙星的三联疗法和左氧氟沙星和呋喃妥因加埃索美拉唑。关联分析表明,在治疗人群的意向中,抗生素敏感性指导治疗组的幽门螺杆菌根除率显著高于常规治疗组的85.7%(24/28)和53.3%(16/30)(P=0.035)。在符合方案的人群中,敏感性指导组的根除率为96%,常规治疗组为64%(P=0.005)。敏感性指导治疗和常规治疗的不良事件发生率相似,没有显著差异(P=0.527)。结论在抗微生物耐药性高的地区,基于培养的根除疗法表现出优于经验疗法作为幽门螺杆菌一线疗法的根除率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tailored Helicobacter pylori therapy is more effective than conventional therapy: a randomized-controlled trial
Background and aims Tailored (culture and sensitivity) therapy has gained attention over recent years as an effective option for eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. The authors aimed to assess the efficacy of antibiotics sensitivity-guided therapy versus clarithromycin or levofloxacin triple therapies as the first-line therapy for H. pylori. Patients and methods Dyspeptic patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy were prospectively enrolled. Patients with positive H. pylori results by the rapid urease test were randomized to receive either antibiotics sensitivity-guided therapy or empirical clarithromycin or levofloxacin-based triple therapy for 14 days. Antimicrobial sensitivity tests for seven antibiotics (clarithromycin, amoxicillin, metronidazole, levofloxacin, tetracycline, nitrofurantoin, and rifampicin) were performed using the disk-diffusion method. Group A received antibiotics sensitivity-guided therapies that included esomeprazole plus two antibiotics for which the isolates were sensitive and group B received conventional therapies that included esomeprazole, amoxicillin plus clarithromycin or levofloxacin for 2 weeks. Eradication of H. pylori was checked using stool antigen 4 weeks after therapy. Results A total of 25 patients completed the study in each group. Both studied groups were matched for baseline characteristics. The most commonly used regimen in the antimicrobial sensitivity-based therapy was clarithromycin-based triple therapy (46.5%), followed by levofloxacin-based triple therapy and levofloxacin and nitrofurantoin plus esomeprazole. The association analysis demonstrated that, in the intention-to-treat populations, the H. pylori eradication rate was significantly higher in the antibiotic sensitivity-guided therapy group [85.7% (24/28) vs. 53.3% (16/30) in the conventional therapy group (P=0.035). In the per-protocol populations, the eradication rate was 96% for the sensitivity-guided therapy group and 64% for the conventional therapy group (P=0.005). The rates of adverse events were similar in both sensitivity-guided and conventional therapies, with no significant differences (P=0.527). Conclusions Culture-based eradication therapy demonstrated superior eradication rates than empirical therapy as a first-line therapy for H. pylori in a region with high rates of antimicrobial resistance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
34 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信