| Literature DB >> 24995271 |
Ming-Cheh Chen1, Wei-Yi Lei2, Jen-Shung Lin3, Chih-Hsun Yi4, Deng-Chyang Wu5, Chi-Tan Hu6.
Abstract
The resistance rates of Helicobacter pylori to amoxicillin and metronidazole therapy are higher in eastern Taiwan as compared to national and worldwide rates. The high resistance rate in this territory justified a search for a better eradication regimen. We conducted an open-labeled, prospective, randomized, and controlled study in a tertiary referral hospital in eastern Taiwan. Between December 2007 and December 2009, a total of 153 Helicobacter pylori-positive, therapy-naïve patients with a positive rapid urease test were recruited for random assignment to two seven-day treatment groups: levofloxacin (500 mg), amoxicillin/clavulanate (875 mg/125 mg), and rabeprazole (20 mg) twice per day (LAcR) or clarithyromicin (500 mg), amoxicillin (1000 mg), and rabeprazole (20 mg) twice per day (CAR). Helicobacter pylori eradication was assessed using the (13)C-urea breath test or rapid urease test performed at least 4 weeks after the end of treatment. After exclusion, 146 patients were enrolled and allocated in the study. The Helicobacter pylori eradication rates analyzed by both intention to treat (78.1% versus 57.5%, P = 0.008) and perprotocol (80.9% versus 61.8%, P = 0.014) were significantly higher for the LAcR group. In conclusion, the seven-day LAcR regimen provided improved Helicobacter pylori eradication efficacy when compared with the standard CAR triple therapy in eastern Taiwan.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24995271 PMCID: PMC4066685 DOI: 10.1155/2014/158520
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Primary resistance rate of H. pylori reported in Taiwan (published since 2000 to 2010 D.C.)
| Author (study period) | Location | Metronidazole | Clarithromycin | Amoxicillin | Levofloxacin | Tetracycline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hu et al. (2004~2005) [ | Hualien (east) | 51.9% | 13.5% | 36.1% | Nil | 0% |
| Yang et al. (1997~1999) [ | Taipei (north) | 9% (6/67) | 18% (12/67) | Nil | Nil | Nil |
|
Poon et al. (1998~2000) [ | Taichung (west) | 41.7% (35/84) | 10.7% (9/84) | 0% (0/84) | Nil | Nil |
| Poon et al. (2001~2004) [ | Taichung (west) | 25.4% (34/134) | 6.7% (9/134) | 0% (0/134) | Nil | Nil |
| Hung et al. (1998~2007) [ | Tainan (south) | 27.6% (58/210) | 9.5% (20/210) | 1.0% (2/210) | 5.7% (12/210) | 0.5% (1/210) |
| Wu et al. (2007~2008) [ | Kaohsiung (south) | 33.5% (56/167) | 6.6% (11/167) | 0.6% (1/167) | 10.2% (17/167) | 0.6% (1/167) |
| Liou et al. (2007~2009) [ | Taipei (north) | Nil | 7.5% (20/266) | 2.5% (7/279) | 5.7% (16/280) | Nil |
Figure 1The participant flow chart.
Demographic characteristics of participants.
| All ( | LAcR ( | CAR ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (years) | 53.73 ± 13.29 | 52.82 ± 12.08 | 54.63 ± 14.42 | 0.413 |
| Age < 60 years old, | 98 (67.1) | 51 (69.9) | 47 (64.4) | |
| Age ≧ 60 years old, | 48 (32.9) | 22 (30.1) | 26 (35.6) | 0.481 |
| Gender | ||||
| Male, | 71 (48.6) | 38 (52.1) | 33 (45.2) | |
| Female, | 75 (51.4) | 35 (47.9) | 40 (54.8) | 0.408 |
| Resident area | ||||
| Urban, | 54 (37.0) | 30 (41.1) | 24 (32.9) | |
| Rural, | 92 (63.0) | 43 (58.9) | 49 (67.1) | 0.304 |
| Endoscopic finding | ||||
| With peptic ulcer, | 65 (44.5) | 30 (41.1) | 35 (47.9) | |
| Without peptic ulcer, | 81 (55.5) | 43 (58.9) | 38 (52.1) | 0.405 |
| Follow-up method | ||||
| C13 urea breath test | 130 (89.0) | 65 (89.0) | 65 (89.0) | 0.881 |
| CLO test | 9 (6.2) | 5 (6.9) | 4 (5.5) | |
| Lost to follow up | 7 (4.8) | 3 (4.1) | 4 (5.5) |
Comparison of eradication rate and subgroup analysis.
| Perprotocol analysis | Intention-to-treat analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAcR, | CAR, |
| Odd ratio (95% CI) | LAcR, | CAR, |
| Odd ratio (95% CI) | |
| All | 55 (80.9) | 42 (61.8) | 0.014* | 2.619 | 57 (78.1) | 42 (57.5) | 0.008* | 2.629 (1.28~5.42) |
| Age | ||||||||
| <60 years old | 37 (75.5) | 31 (72.1) | 0.710 | 1.194 (0.47~3.03) | 37 (72.5) | 31 (66.0) | 0.479 | 1.364 (0.58~3.23) |
| ≧60 years old | 20 (95.2) | 11 (42.3) | 0.000* | 27.273 (3.17~235) | 20 (90.9) | 11 (42.3) | 0.000* | 13.636 (2.62~70.91) |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | 30 (81.1) | 20 (64.5) | 0.123 | 2.357 (0.78~7.11) | 30 (78.9) | 20 (60.6) | 0.091 | 2.438 (0.86~6.94) |
| Female | 25 (80.6) | 22 (59.5) | 0.060 | 2.841 (0.94~8.59) | 27 (77.1) | 22 (55.0) | 0.044* | 2.761 (1.01~7.55) |
| Resident area | ||||||||
| Urban | 21 (77.8) | 16 (76.2) | 0.748 | 1.094 (0.28~4.23) | 22 (73.3) | 16 (66.7) | 0.594 | 1.375 (0.43~4.44) |
| Rural | 34 (82.9) | 26 (55.3) | 0.006* | 3.923 (1.45~10.62) | 35 (81.4) | 26 (53.1) | 0.004* | 3.870 (1.50~10.02) |
| Endoscopic finding | ||||||||
| With peptic ulcer | 22 (75.9) | 22 (66.7) | 0.426 | 1.571 (0.51~4.80) | 22 (73.3) | 22 (62.9) | 0.368 | 1.625 (0.56~4.69) |
| Without peptic ulcer | 33 (84.6) | 20 (57.1) | 0.009* | 4.125 (1.38~12.36) | 35 (81.4) | 20 (52.6) | 0.006* | 3.938 (1.45~10.68) |
*P < 0.05.
Multiple logistic regression analysis.
| Perprotocol | Intention to treat | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95% CI) |
| Odds ratio (95% CI) |
| |
| Age | ||||
| <60 years old | 1.0 (referent) | 1.0 (referent) | ||
| ≥60 years old | 1.33 (0.61–2.92) | 0.478 | 1.16 (0.55–2.47) | 0.696 |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 1.0 (referent) | 1.0 (referent) | ||
| Female | 1.14 (0.53–2.46) | 0.737 | 1.18 (0.57–2.44) | 0.648 |
| Resident area | ||||
| Urban | 1.0 (referent) | 1.0 (referent) | ||
| Rural | 1.49 (0.65–3.42) | 0.342 | 1.12 (0.53–2.37) | 0.775 |
| Endoscopic finding | ||||
| With peptic ulcer | 1.0 (referent) | 1.0 (referent) | ||
| Without peptic ulcer | 1.05 (0.48–2.26) | 0.909 | 1.05 (0.51–2.16) | 0.900 |
| Treatment | ||||
| CAR | 1.0 (referent) | 1.0 (referent) | ||
| LAcR | 2.67 (1.22–5.84) | 0.014* | 2.57 (1.24–5.33) | 0.011* |
*P < 0.05.
Comparison of side effects.
| LAcRa | CAR |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| All, | 10 (13.7) | 11 (15.1) | 0.814 |
| Abdominal pain | 2 | 2 | |
| Flatus/abdominal fullness | 1 | 3 | |
| Loose stool/diarrhea | 3 | 1 | |
| Nausea/hiccough | 4 | 4 | |
| Vomiting | 2a | 0 | |
| Change in appetite | 2 | 4 | |
| Insomnia | 1 | 0 |
aOne of the two cases stopped the LAcR therapy due to severe vomiting.