Ignasi Puig1, Sheila López-Góngora2, Xavier Calvet3, Albert Villoria4, Mireia Baylina2, Jordi Sanchez-Delgado4, David Suarez5, Victor García-Hernando4, Javier P Gisbert6. 1. Digestive Diseases Unit, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitaria de Manresa. Barcelona, Spain. 2. Internal Medicine Department, Corporació Sanitària Universitària Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain. 3. Servei d'Aparell Digestiu, Hospital de Sabadell, Departament de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de enfermedades hepáticas y digestivas (CIBERehd), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Parc Taulí, 1 08208 Sabadell (Barcelona), Spain. 4. Departament de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Unitat d'Epidemiologia i Avaluació, Hospital de Sabadell, Sabadell, Spain. 6. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de enfermedades hepáticas y digestivas (CIBERehd), Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Susceptibility-guided therapies (SGTs) have been proposed as preferable to empirical rescue treatments after two treatment failures. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of SGT as third-line therapy. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in multiple databases. Studies reporting cure rates of Helicobacter pylori with SGT in third-line therapy were selected. A qualitative analysis describing the current evidence and a pooled mean analysis summarizing the cure rates of SGT in third-line therapy was performed. RESULTS: No randomized controlled trials or comparative studies were found. Four observational studies reported cure rates with SGT in third-line treatment, and three studies which mixed patients with second- and third-line treatment also reported cure rates with SGT. The majority of the studies included the patients when culture had been already obtained, and so the effectiveness of SGT and empirical therapy has never been compared. A pooled mean analysis including four observational studies (283 patients) showed intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates with SGT of 72% (95% confidence interval 56-87%; I(2) : 92%) and 80% (95% confidence interval 71-90%; I(2) : 80%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SGT may be an acceptable option as rescue treatment. However, cure rates are, at best, moderate and this approach has never been compared with a well-devised empirical therapy. The evidence in favor of SGT as rescue therapy is currently insufficient to recommend its use.
BACKGROUND: Susceptibility-guided therapies (SGTs) have been proposed as preferable to empirical rescue treatments after two treatment failures. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of SGT as third-line therapy. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in multiple databases. Studies reporting cure rates of Helicobacter pylori with SGT in third-line therapy were selected. A qualitative analysis describing the current evidence and a pooled mean analysis summarizing the cure rates of SGT in third-line therapy was performed. RESULTS: No randomized controlled trials or comparative studies were found. Four observational studies reported cure rates with SGT in third-line treatment, and three studies which mixed patients with second- and third-line treatment also reported cure rates with SGT. The majority of the studies included the patients when culture had been already obtained, and so the effectiveness of SGT and empirical therapy has never been compared. A pooled mean analysis including four observational studies (283 patients) showed intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates with SGT of 72% (95% confidence interval 56-87%; I(2) : 92%) and 80% (95% confidence interval 71-90%; I(2) : 80%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:SGT may be an acceptable option as rescue treatment. However, cure rates are, at best, moderate and this approach has never been compared with a well-devised empirical therapy. The evidence in favor of SGT as rescue therapy is currently insufficient to recommend its use.
Authors: Peter Malfertheiner; Francis Megraud; Colm A O'Morain; John Atherton; Anthony T R Axon; Franco Bazzoli; Gian Franco Gensini; Javier P Gisbert; David Y Graham; Theodore Rokkas; Emad M El-Omar; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Gut Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Pedro González Carro; Francisco Pérez Roldán; Aurora De Pedro Esteban; Maria L Legaz Huidobro; Susana Soto Fernández; Oscar Roncero Garcia Escribano; Jose M Esteban López-Jamar; Carmen Pedraza Martin; Francisco Ruíz Carrillo Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.029
Authors: C Y Tay; H M Windsor; F Thirriot; W Lu; C Conway; T T Perkins; B J Marshall Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Francis Megraud; Samuel Coenen; Ann Versporten; Manfred Kist; Manuel Lopez-Brea; Alexander M Hirschl; Leif P Andersen; Herman Goossens; Youri Glupczynski Journal: Gut Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: G Cammarota; A Martino; G Pirozzi; R Cianci; G Branca; E C Nista; A Cazzato; O Cannizzaro; L Miele; A Grieco; A Gasbarrini; G Gasbarrini Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Bei Tan; Jyh-Chin Yang; Carol L Young; Shrinivas Bishu; Stephanie Y Owyang; Mohamad El-Zaatari; Min Zhang; Helmut Grasberger; Jia-Ming Qian; John Y Kao Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Jae Ho Choi; Young Joo Yang; Chang Seok Bang; Jae Jun Lee; Gwang Ho Baik Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 2.260