Helicobacter pylori resistance to antibiotics before and after treatment: Incidence of eradication failure.

BACKGROUND: Increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance especially to clarithromycin and metronidazole has been observed in Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). AIM: To characterize the antimicrobial resistance pattern of H. pylori before and after treatment in a cohort of patients accumulated over a period of 15 years after an unsuccessful eradication treatment had been given comparing sensitivity data from patients with newly diagnosed H. pylori infection. A specific objective was to look for resistance to levofloxacin.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Total of 50 patients newly diagnosed for H. pylori infection treated with omeprazole and amoxicillin/clarithromycin and 42 H pylori treatment-resistant patients treated with omeprazole and amoxicillin/levofloxacin were enrolled in this study. Cultures including antibiotic sensitivity testing were conducted according to standard laboratory routines and thus also in keeping with a European study protocol using E-test gradient strips or disc diffusion methods.
RESULTS: Clarithromycin resistance was more frequently observed in the H. pylori resistant group than in newly diagnosed H. pylori group (39% versus 11%). Regarding metronidazole the distribution was 70% versus 38%, and 8% versus 12% were resistant to tetracycline. No resistance was observed for amoxicillin. After re-treatment of patients belonging to the H. pylori treatment-resistant group, just two patient strains were recovered of which one harbored metronidazole resistance. In the group of newly diagnosed H. pylori, seven patients were culture positive by control after treatment. Two and three patient strains showing resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole, respectively. None of the strains in our material was classified as resistant to amoxicillin and levofloxacin. Whereas 12% was resistant to tetracycline in the newly diagnosed before treatment.
CONCLUSION: Clarithromycin resistance was more frequent in the H. pylori treatment-resistant group than strains from patients with newly diagnosed H. pylori infection. No resistance was observed to amoxicillin and levofloxacin. In such cases Therefore levofloxacin may be used provided in vitro sensitivity testing confirms applicability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05019586.

Introduction

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) was discovered in 1983 [1] and has been identified as the main pathogenic factor for gastric and duodenal peptic ulcers [2]. Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related death in the world. It is now wellestablished that H. pylori-infection predispose individuals toward gastric adenocarcinoma later in life. Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related death in the world [3]. H. pylori has been classified as a class I carcinogen by the World Health Organization (WHO).

WHO classified in 2017 H. pylori among 12 families of bacteria that are the most resistant to antibiotics.

The increase in H. pylori resistance to antibiotics can revive the problem of gastric cancer. Treatment of the H. pylori infection cures patients with such ulcers, thus this disease is no longer a chronically recurring and disabling condition in the Western world. However the infection is still a great problem worldwide, especially in developing countries, where up to 50% of the population may be infected [4, 5].

Initially, the most effective eradication regimens had an efficacy of >90% [6]. Unfortunately after 20 years of infection treatment increasing antimicrobial resistance of H. pylori has been installed [7]. This includes resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole due to increased use of these antibiotics for other conditions.

Clarithromycin resistance has especially had a major negative impact as it has been a main constituent of the recommended first-line triple therapy for H. pylori eradication. Metronidazole resistance is highly prevalent but can to some extent be overcome [8]. Thus, the increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance has to be considered when designing rational therapeutic regimens for H. pylori infection [9, 10]. In areas with a known high degree of resistance to both clarithromycin and metronidazole, bismuth quadruple therapy is recommended [11].

Parallel to the increasing antibiotic resistance, a cohort of patients infected with treatment-resistant H. pylori has accumulated. These patients will be at risk for the recurrence of peptic ulcer disease. Few reports exist on the clinical or the microbial characterizations of this cohort of patients. However, some data are emerging in the search for a new effective antibiotic therapy, including levofloxacin [12]. Thus, the goal of this study was to characterize the antimicrobial resistance pattern of H. pylori in a cohort of patients accumulated over a period of 15 years after an unsuccessful eradication attempt.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The study is approved by the Regional Commitee for Medical and Health Research Ethics

(REC North ID: 2009/175-15) including storage of biological material.

Consents from the participants are obtained in oral and written form

Study population

Enrollment and patient flow

The data presented are from the main Chronical Infection of Helicobacter Pylori (CHRIHEP) study published elsewhere [13]. Patients were recruited from three different cohorts admitted to three different gastrointestinal units at Norwegian hospitals: i.e. The University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø; Drammen Hospital, Drammen and Ringerike Hospital, Hønefoss, the latter two both being parts of Vestre Viken Hospital Trust. We report the data obtained from the two groups of interest with active H. pylori infection:

Group 1 (H. pylori treatment- resistant n = 42), were recruited from medical files from 1990 to 2012, and from patients that had been treated unsuccessfully two or more times for H. pylori infection with different regimens [13]. All persons completed treatment and controls

Group 2 (H. pylori untreated, n = 50) were outpatients referred to the Gastrointestinal unit for upper endoscopy due to gastrointestinal complaints and diagnosed as being H. pylori- infected for the first time [13]. There were 52 patients, two of them denied participation.

The diagnosis of H. pylori in biopsies was based on a positive result for either the H. pylori rapid urease test or detection of the presence of H. pylori in histological specimens, or both [13].

Determination of antimicrobial sensitivity

Bacterial strains, isolated between 2010 and 2016, were examined using a standardized technique according to a European study protocol [10]. All isolates were recovered from biopsies from the stomach lining in patients with suspected H. pylori-related disease. Identification was based on colony morphology, Gram staining and positive catalase, oxidase and urease tests. The strains were kept at -70°C. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of metronidazole, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, tetracycline and levofloxacin were determined by E-test (bioMerieux, France). Levofloxacin representing the quinolone group of antibiotics. The inoculum was adjusted to McFarland standard 3. Mueller Hinton agar (Beckton Dickinson) with 10% horse blood was used. Agar plates were incubated for 72–96 hours in microaerobic conditions (Campygen, OXOID, UK). MIC values were read according to the instructions from the manufacturer.

Treatment

Patients in Group 1 (H. pylori treatment-resistant) have retreated with oral omeprazole 20 mg b.i.d., amoxicillin 1 g b.i.d, and levofloxacin 500 mg b.i.d. for 10 days. Six of the 42 patients were still H. pylori positive after treatment. In Group 2 (H. pylori naïve), ten of 50 patients (20%) were H. pylori positive after treatment of oral omeprazole 20 mg b.i.d, amoxicillin 1 g b.i.d., and clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d. for 7 days [13]. Subjects in both groups underwent gastroscopy 3–6 months after treatment and biopsies were collected for the various examinations described above.

Statistics

Data are presented as counts (percentage). Calculations and Chi-squared tests were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics 24 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA)

Results

A total of 92 patients, divided into 42 in Group 1 and 50 in Group 2, were enrolled according to the inclusion criteria cited above. Exclusion criteria was double platelet inhibition and non-compliance [13]. Results from bacterial cultures of gastric mucosal biopsies are shown in Table 1. Among patients with positive H. pylori tests, positive cultures were obtained from 26 of 42 and 42 of 50 patients in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively, before treatment in this study (visit 1). After treatment (visit 2), two of 37 and nine of 42 cultures were positive for H. pylori, respectively (Table 1). Two of the nine positive cultures in Group 2 did not yield valid results. In Tables 2 and 3 the detailed antimicrobial resistance data are shown both before (Visit 1) and after treatment (Visit 2).

Table 1

Examinations for H. pylori by conventional culture of gastric biopsies.

Study group	Group 1		Group 2
	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment
Cultures	42	37	50	42
negative	16 (38.1%)	35 (94.5%)	8 (16.0%)	33 (78.6%)
positive	26 (61.9%)	2 (5,4%)	42 (84.0%)	9 (21.4%)

Results from H. pylori cultures of gastric mucosal biopsies before or after treatment in the two study groups; both groups show highly significant treatment response (p<0.001 by Chi-square). Group 1: resistant H. pylori, Group 2: naïve H. pylori.

Numbers are n or n (%). For further details, see text.

Table 2

Antimicrobial resistance in H. pylori cultures from.

Group 1	Before treatment (n = 26)			After treatment (n = 2)
	Sensitive	Resistant	Intermediate	Sensitive	Resistant	Intermediate
Amoxicillin	26 (100%)	0	0	2 (100%)	0	0
Clarithromycin	16 (61.5%)	10 (38.5%)	0	2 (100%)	0	0
Metronidazole	7 (30.4%)	16 (69.5%)	0	1 (50%)	1 (50%)	0
Tetracycline	23 (92.0%)	2 (8.0%)	0	2 (100%)	0	0

Table 3

Antimicrobial resistance in H. pylori cultures from.

Group 2	Before treatment (n = 42)			After treatment (n = 9; valid = 7)
	Sensitive	Resistant	Intermediate	Sensitive	Resistant	Intermediate
Amoxicillin	42 (100%)	0	0	7 (100%)	0	0
Clarithromycin	38 (89.5%)	4 (10.5%)	0	5 (71.4%)	1 (14.3%)	1 (14.3%)
Metronidazole	25 (59.5%)	16 (38.1%)	1 (2.4%)	4 (57.2%)	3 (42.8%)	0
Tetracycline	36 (85.7%)	5 (11.9%)	1 (2.4%)	7 (100%)	0	0

Tests for antimicrobial resistance in cultures of H. pylori in the to study groups, before and after treatment. Group 1: resistant H. pylori, Group 2: naïve H. pylori. Two of the cultures in Group 2 “After treatment” did not yield valid test results. Numbers are n or n (%).

At visit 1, in Group 1 clarithromycin resistance was more frequently observed than in Group 2 (38,5% versus 10,5%), for metronidazole the distribution was 69,5% versus 38,1%, for tetracycline the distribution was 8% versus 11,9%. No resistance was observed for amoxicillin. At visit 2, in Group 1 only two isolates were positive, where one isolate showed metronidazole resistance. At visit 2, in Group 2, seven cultures were positive, two and three with resistance for clarithromycin and metronidazole, respectively.

None of the strains in our material was classified as resistant to amoxicillin or levofloxacin.

Discussion

In the cohort of patients with treatment failures (secondary resistance) to H. pylori, accumulated over 15 years, the most prevalent resistance pattern was observed against metronidazole (69,5%) and a somewhat lower prevalence against clarithromycin (38,5%), even less against tetracycline (8%) and none towards amoxicillin. These data are in keeping with data presented from other research groups and general surveillance of antibiotic sensitivity of H. pylori [14]. The prevalence of antibiotic resistance in newly diagnosed patients H. pylori infection (primary resistance) was 38,1% for metronidazole and 10,5% for clarithromycin i.e.half the numbers compared to what were observed in H.pylori infected patients having treatment failures.

Resistance for tetracycline was 11,9%. None of the strains in our study was classified as resistant to neither amoxicillin nor levofloxacin. Even with these antibiotic resistance patterns, we achieve eradication rates of 79% and 92% in the Hp naïve and Hp resistant groups, respectively. Thus, our study indicates that secondary H. pylori resistance to metronidazole and clarithromycin may be overcome by the application of new antibiotic combinations. Over the last years, reports from different parts of the world have been published dealing with antimicrobial resistance rates in H. pylori [15]. At present, WHO considers H. pylori to be an important threat to human health based on the global wide appearance and declining antibiotic sensitivity [16]. Comparing results from different reports may, however, be difficult as in many cases different methodologies have been applied [15]. In addition, some presentations do not specify whether the reported numbers reflect primary resistance alone or a mix of strains from both categories [15].

Furthermore, higher levels of H. pylori primary antibiotic resistance might be expected in general in countries where antibiotic usage is higher than for instance in the Nordic countries (ECDC report 2015) [17]. An European multicenter study reported in 1997 an average primary resistance rate in Europe of 9.9% to clarithromycin [18]. Another study from 2013 showed that resistance rates to many drugs currently in use correlated with local antibiotic consumption [19]. In this study, the primary resistance to clarithromycin varied between 5.6% and 36.6%. An analysis in 2019 on the antibiotic sensitivity pattern in H. pylori in South-Eastern Norway showed a clarithromycin resistance of < 10% [20]. This figure corresponds with data obtained on clarithromycin use in the same period [21]. These findings support the lesser occurrence of antibiotic resistance in H. pylori provided a corresponding restricted prescription of clarithromycin. A follow-up study on the relationship between antibiotic consumption and H. pylori resistance support this notion [14].

There is no indication of increasing primary resistance to clarithromycin in our catchment area over the last 10 years as the present study showed a MIC50 value (the MIC value that inhibits 50% of the isolates) of 0.023 for clarithromycin, compared to 0.047 (In-house data, N = 23) obtained approximately 10 years ago. Data on primary resistance in Europe was shown to be 24% for clarithromycin, 34% for metronidazole and 20% for levofloxacin [22].

The reported resistance to metronidazole varies globally. In Europe, the prevalence of metronidazole resistance in H. pylori is generally between 20 and 40% [11], whereas the prevalence in developing countries is known to be higher (50–80%) [23]. Differences may reflect the widespread use of metronidazole in these areas, methodological differences, or weak reproducibility of the analysis. In our study, 69,5% (Group 1) and 38,1% (Group 2) of the isolates were resistant to metronidazole when the adopted European methodology was applied, i.e., microaerobic conditions for the entire incubation period. However, as metronidazole requires anaerobic conditions to be activated, the Norwegian reference group for antibiotics has recommended that the application of anaerobic conditions be limited to the initial 24 hours of the incubation period when performing susceptibility testing for metronidazole. Applying this approach, the resistance rate towards metronidazole fell from 22.5% to 7.8% in a recent study [10], indicating that a substantial number of the resistant strains might be clinically susceptible to metronidazole. The previously mentioned study from 2013 showed that primary resistance rate to metronidazole [18] varied between 28.6% and 43.8%. Thus, in our setting the resistance to antibiotics used for the treatment of H. pylori is low with the exception of metronidazole and partly clarithromycin. Moreover, H. pylori resistance to clarithromycin has been reported from other countries leaving the use of levofloxacin for primary treatment resistant cases [24]. Levofloxacin resistance is due to changes in gyrA component of H. pylori [22-25] that renders even fluoroquinolones inactive to suppress H. pylori growth [22, 25, 26].

Based on generally available international data on antibiotic resistance in H. pylori, the level of sensitivity seems to vary internationally according to the general use of antibiotics and the antibiotic combinations applied in H. pylori therapy [26]. In addition, changes in the antibiotic sensitivity pattern of H. pylori may also serve as a sign of antibiotic interference with the human microflora. Use of these drugs should be carefully monitored. Increasing resistance should advocate reduced consumption and to target the use of antibiotics carefully to secure a successful outcome while preserving these valuable drugs for serious infections to come. Thus, continuous surveillance of antibiotic resistance in this H. pylori is warranted in order to secure optimal treatment options for gastric diseases patients and infectious disease patients in general. Finally, the data from the European surveillance study [22-27] indicate an increase in levofloxacin resistance is to be expected and the drug should be reserved primarily for treatment failures. A susceptibility check of the offending strain should definitely be performed to ensure H. pylori susceptibility to the drugs to be used for eradicating the bacteria even though such sensitivity testing is, for various reasons, done to a lesser extent than it should be [28].

The strength of this study is we have studied antibiotic resistance in H. pylori comparing a previous treatment-resistant group to a group newly diagnosed for H. pylori infection. Moreover, the potential of resistance to levofloxacin–the apparent drug of choice in treatment-resistant cases- has been studied. The weakness of the study is the lack of a continuous surveillance of antibiotic resistance in this microbe as indicated above. Therefore, a future ongoing study to secure optimal treatment options is highly warranted and especially focuses on levofloxacin resistance.

In conclusion, clarithromycin resistance was more frequently observed in patients resistant to H. pylori treatment than in patients newly diagnosed for H. pylori infection. None of the samples showed resistance to amoxicillin and levofloxacin. This implies that levofloxacin should be the drug of choice in cases resistant to ordinary triple regimens. When antibiotic therapy is planned, sensitivity testing of the offending strain should be performed to define the antibiotics to be used and thus increase the chance for successful eradication of the H. pylori infection.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Dec 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Grzegorz Woźniakowski, Full professor, PhD, ScD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

“NO”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A research study was conducted on two groups of patients to describe the antimicrobial resistance pattern of H. pylori. Bacterial strains recovered from patients after unsuccessful treatment for H. pylori infection showed clarithromycin resistance more frequently than strains from patients with newly diagnosed H. pylori infection.

Minor revisions:

1- Include a brief statistical analysis section which summarizes the type of descriptive data presented. This section should also cite the statistical software used for the analysis.

2- Within the text, provide percentages corresponding to frequencies.

Reviewer #2: The article raises a public health problem, it is about the resistance to antibiotics in bacteria which, if still untreated, will be responsible at long term to gastric cancer.

The study made by this author is very interesting, because it is a monitoring of the resistance of the main antibiotics given in therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication.

I congratulate the author on your work. However, I added in attach some comments and propositions to improve your article together.

Good continuation.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jan 2022

We have done changes in the article due to proposals from editor end reviewers.

That is the title of the article, abstract and keywords.

In introduction we have taken in relationship between H. pylori and gastric cancer. Also WHOs concerning about H. pylori and antibiotic resistance. There is a new reference for this.

In material and methods we have done changes as indicated from the reviewers and there is information about statistic there.

In results we have specified the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

In discussion we have added percentage of resistens for tetracycline.

In tables we have changed text and have put in sensitivity in percentage for each antibiotics.

MICs are in a Supporting Information file

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 090122.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Mar 2022

Helicobacter pylori resistance to antibiotics before and after treatment: incidence of eradication failure.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05019586

PONE-D-21-21216R1

Dear Dr. Nestegard,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Grzegorz Woźniakowski, Full professor, PhD, ScD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Some revisions are needed to the article be ready to be published. I add in attached my comments.

Good continuation.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

11 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-21216R1

Helicobacter pylori resistance to antibiotics before and after treatment: incidence of eradication failure.

Dear Dr. Nestegard:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Grzegorz Woźniakowski

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE