Skip to main content
BMJ Clinical Evidence logoLink to BMJ Clinical Evidence
. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Helicobacter pylori infection

Grigorios I Leontiadis 1,#, Paul Moayyedi 2,#, Alexander Charles Ford 3,#
PMCID: PMC2907775  PMID: 21718575

Abstract

Introduction

The principal effect of Helicobacter pylori infection is lifelong chronic gastritis, affecting up to 20% of younger adults but 50% to 80% of adults born in resource-rich countries before 1950.

Methods and outcomes

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment in people with a confirmed duodenal ulcer, a confirmed gastric ulcer, confirmed gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), confirmed non-ulcer dyspepsia, uninvestigated dyspepsia, localised B cell lymphoma of the stomach, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related peptic ulcers? What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment for preventing NSAID-related peptic ulcers in people with or without previous ulcers or dyspepsia? What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment on the risk of developing gastric cancer? Do H pylori eradication treatments differ in their effects? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Results

We found 58 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

Conclusions

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: effects of H pylori eradication in different populations; relative effects of triple regimens, quadruple regimens, and sequential regimens.

Key Points

The principal effect of Helicobacter pylori infection is lifelong chronic gastritis, affecting up to 20% of younger adults but 50% to 80% of adults born before 1950 in resource-rich countries.

  • H pylori infection can be identified indirectly by the C13 urea breath test and stool antigen tests, which are more accurate than serology.

  • Transmission and prevalence rates are higher in areas of childhood poverty. Adult reinfection rates are less than 1% a year.

  • In people with H pylori infection, about 15% will develop a peptic ulcer and 1% will develop gastric cancer during their lifetime.

Eradication of H pylori makes healing of duodenal ulcers more likely and reduces the risk of bleeding with gastric and duodenal ulcers, either alone or when added to antisecretory drug treatment. Eradication also greatly reduces the risk of recurrence of a duodenal ulcer.

  • Eradication reduces recurrence after healing of a gastric ulcer; however, we don't know whether it increases healing of gastric ulcers.

  • Eradication of H pylori may reduce the risk of NSAID-related ulcers in people without previous ulcers; however, we don't know whether it reduces NSAID-related ulcers or bleeding in people with previous ulcers.

In areas of low prevalence of H pylori, few ulcers are caused by H pylori infection. Eradication may be less effective in preventing ulcers in these areas compared with higher-prevalence areas.

Eradication of H pylori reduces symptoms of dyspepsia, but not of GORD.

Despite the association between H pylori infection and gastric cancer, no studies have shown a reduced risk after eradication treatment.

Quadruple and triple regimens seem equally effective at eradicating H pylori as first-line treatments. Quadruple regimens may be more effective as second-line treatment than triple regimens when a first-line triple regimen has failed to eradicate the infection. However, the evidence is limited in that, in comparisons of second-line quadruple versus triple regimens, most triple regimens did not contain a nitroimidazole.

Ten-day sequential therapy may be more effective at eradicating H pylori than a 7-day triple regimen.

Nitroimidazole-based triple regimens and amoxicillin-based triple regimens seem equally effective at eradicating H pylori. High-dose clarithromycin within an amoxicillin-based triple regimen seems more effective at eradicating H pylori than low-dose clarithromycin. However, the dose of clarithromycin within a nitroimidazole-based triple regimen does not seem to have an effect on eradication rates.

Triple regimens using different proton pump inhibitors seem equally effective at eradicating H pylori.

Lower eradication rates are achieved in people infected with strains of H pylori that are resistant to antibiotics included in the eradication regimen than are achieved in people infected with sensitive strains of H pylori.

Antibiotics can cause adverse effects such as nausea and diarrhoea. Bismuth may turn the stools black.

Clinical context

About this condition

Definition

Helicobacter pylori is a gram-negative flagellated spiral bacterium found in the stomach. Infection with H pylori is predominantly acquired in childhood. H pylori infection is not associated with a specific type of dyspeptic symptom. The organism is associated with lifelong chronic gastritis and may cause other gastroduodenal disorders. Diagnosis: H pylori can be identified indirectly by serology or by the C13 urea breath test. The urea breath test is more accurate than serology, with a sensitivity and specificity greater than 95%, and indicates active infection, whereas serology may lack specificity and cannot be used reliably as a test of active infection. Thus, the urea breath test is the test of choice where prevalence (and hence predictive value of serology) may be low, or where a "test of cure" is required. In some areas, stool antigen tests that have a similar performance to the urea breath test are now available. Population: This review focuses on H pylori-positive people throughout.

Incidence/ Prevalence

In the developed world, H pylori prevalence rates vary with year of birth and social class. Prevalence in many resource-rich countries tends to be much higher (50%–80%) in individuals born before 1950 compared with prevalence (<20%) in individuals born more recently. In many resource-poor countries, the infection has a high prevalence (80%–95%) irrespective of the period of birth. Adult prevalence is believed to represent the persistence of a historically higher rate of infection acquired in childhood, rather than increasing acquisition of infection during life.

Aetiology/ Risk factors

Overcrowded conditions associated with childhood poverty lead to increased transmission and higher prevalence rates. Adult reinfection rates are low — less than 1% a year.

Prognosis

H pylori infection is believed to be causally related to the development of duodenal and gastric ulceration, B cell gastric lymphoma, and distal gastric cancer. About 15% of people infected with H pylori will develop a peptic ulcer, and 1% of people will develop gastric cancer during their lifetime. One systematic review of observational studies (search date 2000; 16 studies, 1625 people) found that the frequency of peptic ulcer disease in people taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was greater in those who were H pylori positive than in those who were H pylori negative (peptic ulcer: 341/817 [42%] in H pylori-positive NSAID users v 209/808 [26%] in H pylori-negative NSAID users; OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.68 to 2.67).

Aims of intervention

Eradication of H pylori; improvement in dyspeptic symptoms; improvement in ulcer healing; reduction in ulcer recurrence and complications; reduced mortality from peptic ulcer complications of gastric cancer; improved quality of life.

Outcomes

Under questions on treatments in people with confirmed ulcers: ulcer healing, ulcer recurrence, ulcer bleeding, and ulcer perforation or obstruction. Under questions on preventing ulcers: prevention of ulcers. Under questions on people with symptoms (confirmed GORD, non-ulcer dyspepsia, uninvestigated dyspepsia): symptom improvement (includes quality of life). Under the question on people at risk of developing gastric cancer: prevention of gastric cancer and regression of pre-cancerous lesions. Under the question on whether eradication treatments differ in their effects: eradication rates of H pylori.

Methods

Clinical Evidence search and appraisal September 2007. The following databases were used to identify studies for this review: Medline 1966 to September 2007, Embase 1980 to September 2007, and The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2007 (all databases). Additional searches were carried out using these websites: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) — for all databases, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), and NICE. Abstracts of the studies retrieved were assessed independently by two information specialists using pre-determined criteria to identify relevant studies. Study design criteria for inclusion in this review were: published systematic reviews and RCTs in any language and including more than 20 individuals of whom more than 80% were followed up. Open studies were excluded unless the interventions could not be blinded. There was no minimum length of follow-up required to include studies. There is a wide range of combinations of eradication therapy available, and we have restricted our coverage to those regimens in common clinical use. In the question, "Do H pylori eradication regimens differ in their effects?", when assessing triple regimens, we have included only regimens consisting of a proton pump inhibitor plus two antibiotics chosen among clarithromycin, amoxicillin, or a nitroimidazole (either metronidazole or tinidazole). When assessing quadruple regimens, we have included only regimens consisting of a proton pump inhibitor, a bismuth salt (either bismuth citrate, bismuth subsalicylate, bismuth subnitrate, or tripotassium dicitratobismuthate), a nitroimidazole (either metronidazole or tinidazole), and tetracycline. Dose comparisons have been restricted to high-dose versus low-dose clarithromycin in triple regimens. When assessing sequential therapy, we have assessed only 5 days of dual therapy using a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin followed by 5-day triple therapy using a proton pump inhibitor plus a macrolide plus a nitroimidazole. In addition, we use a regular surveillance protocol to capture harms alerts from organisations such as the FDA and the MHRA, which are added to the review as required. To aid readability of the numerical data in our reviews, we round many percentages to the nearest whole number. Readers should be aware of this when relating percentages to summary statistics such as relative risks (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs). We have performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions included in this review (see table). The categorisation of the quality of the evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) reflects the quality of evidence available for our chosen outcomes in our defined populations of interest. These categorisations are not necessarily a reflection of the overall methodological quality of any individual study, because the Clinical Evidence population and outcome of choice may represent only a small subset of the total outcomes reported, and population included, in any individual trial. For further details of how we perform the GRADE evaluation and the scoring system we use, please see our website (www.clinicalevidence.com).

Table.

GRADE Evaluation of interventions for Helicobacter pylori infection.

Important outcomes Eradication rates, Prevention of gastric cancer, Regression of pre-cancerous lesions, Symptom improvement, Ulcer bleeding, Ulcer healing, Ulcer perforation or obstruction, Ulcer prevention, Ulcer recurrence
Studies (Participants) Outcome Comparison Type of evidence Quality Consistency Directness Effect size GRADE Comment
What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment in people with a confirmed duodenal ulcer?
2 (207) Ulcer healing Eradication treatment versus no eradication treatment 4 –1 0 0 0 Moderate Quality point deducted for sparse data
At least 27 (at least 2509) Ulcer recurrence Eradication treatment versus no eradication treatment 4 0 –1 0 0 Moderate Consistency point deducted for statistical heterogeneity owing to inclusion of different regimens
9 (825) Ulcer bleeding Eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs 4 0 0 –1 +1 High Directness point deducted for inclusion of both duodenal and gastric ulcer. Effect-size point added for RR <0.5
34 (3910) Ulcer healing Eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs versus antisecretory drugs alone 4 0 0 0 0 High
4 (319) Ulcer recurrence Eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs versus antisecretory drugs alone 4 0 0 0 0 High
What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment in people with a confirmed gastric ulcer?
11 (1104) Ulcer recurrence Eradication treatment versus no eradication treatment 4 0 0 0 +1 High Effect-size point added for RR <0.5
9 (825) Ulcer bleeding Eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs 4 0 0 –1 +1 High Directness point deducted for inclusion of both duodenal and gastric ulcer. Effect-size point added for RR <0.5
14 (1572) Ulcer healing Eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs versus antisecretory drugs alone 4 0 0 0 0 High
What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment in people with NSAID-related peptic ulcers?
1 (195) Ulcer healing Eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs alone 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for narrow inclusion criteria
What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment for preventing recurrence of NSAID-related peptic ulcers in people with previous ulcers or dyspepsia?
2 (502) Ulcer prevention Eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs alone 4 –1 –1 –1 0 Very low Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results. Directness point deducted for inclusion of different populations
What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment for preventing NSAID-related peptic ulcers in people without previous ulcers?
2 (607) Ulcer prevention H pylori eradication versus no treatment or placebo 4 –1 0 0 0 Moderate Quality point deducted for no ITT analysis
1 (489) Ulcer prevention H pylori eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for small number of events (2 with triple eradication treatment, none with omeprazole)
What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment in people with confirmed GORD?
2 (1748) Symptom improvement H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo 4 0 0 0 0 High
What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment on the risk of developing gastric cancer?
2 (3888) Prevention of gastric cancer H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo for the prevention of gastric cancer in people at high risk of cancer 4 0 0 0 0 High
1 (852) Regression of pre-cancerous lesions H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo for regression of pre-cancerous lesions 4 –1 0 0 +1 High Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Effect-size point added for RR >2
What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment in people with confirmed non-ulcer dyspepsia?
13 (3186) Symptom improvement H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo 4 0 0 0 0 High
What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment in people with uninvestigated dyspepsia?
2 (478) Symptom improvement H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo in people with uninvestigated dyspepsia 4 0 0 0 0 High
8 (at least 3178) Symptom improvement Initial H pylori testing plus eradication treatment versus management based on initial endoscopy or versus empirical eradication treatment 4 0 –1 –1 0 Low Consistency point deducted for conflicting results. Directness point deducted for uncertainty of applicability of results to both primary and secondary care settings
Do H pylori eradication treatments differ in their effects?
5 (1128) Eradication rates Quadruple regimen versus triple regimen as first-line treatment 4 0 0 0 0 High
3 (184) Eradication rates Quadruple regimens versus triple regiments as second-line treatment 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality point deducted for sparse data. Directness point deducted for inclusion of regimens of different durations
6 (2146) Eradication rates Sequential eradication regimens versus triple eradication regimens as first-line treatment 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of data. Directness point deducted for all studies being conducted in centres in a single country
21 (3998) Eradication rates Nitroimidazole-based versus amoxicillin-based triple regimens as first-line treatment 4 –1 0 0 0 Moderate Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting
25 (5324) Eradication rates Triple regimens using different proton pump inhibitors versus each other as first-line treatment 4 0 0 0 0 High
7 (892) Eradication rates Higher-dose clarithromycin-based triple regimens versus lower-dose clarithromycin-based triple regimens as first-line treatment 4 0 –1 0 0 Moderate Consistency point deducted for different results between SR and subsequent RCTs
9 (773) Eradication rates Pre-treatment with proton pump inhibitor versus no pre-treatment 4 0 0 0 0 High
10 (2592) Eradication rates 14-day triple regimen versus 7-day triple regimen as first-line treatment 4 0 –1 0 0 Moderate Consistency point deducted for different results between SR and subsequent RCTs

We initially allocate 4 points to evidence from RCTs, and 2 points to evidence from observational studies. To attain the final GRADE score for a given comparison, points are deducted or added from this initial score based on preset criteria relating to the categories of quality, directness, consistency, and effect size. Quality: based on issues affecting methodological rigour (e.g., incomplete reporting of results, quasi-randomisation, sparse data [<200 people in the analysis]). Consistency: based on similarity of results across studies. Directness: based on generalisability of population or outcomes. Effect size: based on magnitude of effect as measured by statistics such as relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio.

Glossary

Antisecretory treatment

A treatment that reduces the production of acid by the stomach. These treatments may either be H2 receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors.

Bismuth

A compound containing a bismuth salt, such as bismuth subsalicylate or bismuth citrate.

High-quality evidence

Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Low-quality evidence

Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

MALT

Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) is constitutionally found in the intestine but not in the stomach. MALT lymphoma is also known as B cell gastric lymphoma.

Moderate-quality evidence

Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.

Proton pump inhibitor

A drug that directly inhibits the mechanism within the stomach that secretes acid; examples are esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, or rabeprazole.

Quadruple regimens

H pylori eradication regimen consisting of four components: a proton pump inhibitor, a bismuth salt, a nitroimidazole (either metronidazole or tinidazole), and tetracycline.

Quadruple regimens

Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen consisting of a proton pump inhibitor plus bismuth plus metronidazole plus tetracycline.

Sequential therapy

Involves 10-day H pylori eradiction treatment: 5-day dual therapy with proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin followed by 5-day triple therapy with proton pump inhibitor plus macrolide plus a nitroimidazole.

Triple regimens

H pylori eradication regimen consisting of three components: a proton pump inhibitor plus two antibiotics (either clarithromycin or amoxicillin), and a nitroimidazole (either metronidazole or tinidazole).

Very low-quality evidence

Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this publication is intended for medical professionals. Categories presented in Clinical Evidence indicate a judgement about the strength of the evidence available to our contributors prior to publication and the relevant importance of benefit and harms. We rely on our contributors to confirm the accuracy of the information presented and to adhere to describe accepted practices. Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this and regular advances in medical research we strongly recommend that readers' independently verify specified treatments and drugs including manufacturers' guidance. Also, the categories do not indicate whether a particular treatment is generally appropriate or whether it is suitable for a particular individual. Ultimately it is the readers' responsibility to make their own professional judgements, so to appropriately advise and treat their patients. To the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ Publishing Group Limited and its editors are not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, products liability or otherwise) whether they be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the application of the information in this publication.

Contributor Information

Grigorios I Leontiadis, Division of Gastroenterology , McMaster University, Hamilton ON, Canada.

Professor Paul Moayyedi, Director, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton ON, Canada.

Alexander Charles Ford, Leeds Gastroenterology Institute, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK.

References

  • 1.Nguyen TN, Barkun AN, Fallone CA. Host determinants of Helicobacter pylori infection and its clinical outcome. Helicobacter 1999;4:185–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Harvey RF, Spence RW, Lane JA, et al. Relationship between the birth cohort pattern of Helicobacter pylori infection and the epidemiology of duodenal ulcer. QJM 2002;95:519–525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Axon AT. Helicobacter pylori infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993;32(suppl A):61–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Graham DY. Can therapy ever be denied for Helicobacter pylori infection? Gastroenterology 1997;113 (6 Suppl):S113–S117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Huang J-Q, Sridhar S, Hunt RH. Role of Helicobacter pylori infection and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in peptic ulcer disease: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2002;359:14–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ford AC, Delaney BC, Forman D, et al. Eradication therapy for peptic ulcer disease in Helicobacter pylori positive patients. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2007. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2005. 16625592 [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gisbert JP, Khorrami S, Carballo F, et al. Meta-analysis: Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy vs. antisecretory non-eradication therapy for the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;19:617–629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Penston JG, McColl KEL. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori: an objective assessment of current therapies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997;43:223–243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Laine L, Hopkins RJ, Girardi LS. Has the impact of Helicobacter pylori therapy on ulcer recurrence in the United States been overstated? A meta-analysis of rigorously designed trials. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93:1409–1415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chan FK, Sung JJ, Suen R, et al. Does eradication of Helicobacter pylori impair healing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug associated bleeding peptic ulcers? A prospective randomized study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998;12:1201–1205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chan FK, To KF, Wu JC, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori and risk of peptic ulcers in patients starting long-term treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a randomized trial. Lancet 2002;359:9–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chan FK, Chung SC, Suen BY, et al. Preventing recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with Helicobacter pylori infection who are taking low-dose aspirin or naproxen. N Engl J Med 2001;344:967–973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chan FK, Sung JJ, Chung SC, et al. Randomised trial of eradication of Helicobacter pylori before non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy to prevent peptic ulcers. Lancet 1997;350:975–979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Labenz J, Blum AL, Bolten WW, et al. Primary prevention of diclofenac associated ulcers and dyspepsia by omeprazole or triple therapy in Helicobacter pylori positive patients: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, clinical trial. Gut 2002;51:329–335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Moayyedi P, Bardhan C, Young L, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication does not exacerbate reflux symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2001;121:1120–1126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Harvey RF, Lane JA, Murray LJ, et al. Randomised controlled trial of the effects of Helicobacter pylori infection and its eradication on heartburn and gastro-oesophageal reflux: Bristol helicobacter project. BMJ 2004;328:1417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Labenz J, Blum AL, Bayerdorffer E, et al. Curing Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with duodenal ulcer may provoke reflux esophagitis. Gastroenterology 1997;112:1442–1447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Roher HD, Vereet PR, Wormer O, et al. Helicobacter pylori in the upper gastrointestinal tract: medical or surgical treatment of gastric lymphoma? Langenbecks Arch Surg 2000;385:97–105. Search date not reported; primary sources Medline and hand searches. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Steinbach G, Ford R, Glober G, et al. Antibiotic treatment of gastric lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue. An uncontrolled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:88–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wong B, Lam SK, Wong WM, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication to prevent gastric cancer in a high-risk region of China: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:187–194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.You W, Brown LM, Zhang L, et al. Randomized double-blind factorial trial of three treatments to reduce the prevalence of precancerous gastric lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:974–983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Correa P, Fontham ETH, Bravo JC, et al. Chemoprevention of gastric dysplasia: randomized trial of antioxidant supplements and anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1881–1888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Helicobacter and Cancer Collaborative Group. Gastric cancer and Helicobacter pylori: a combined analysis of 12 case control studies nested within prospective cohorts. Gut 2001;49:347–353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Moayyedi P, Hunt R, Forman D. Helicobacter pylori eradication for the prevention of gastric neoplasia. (Protocol). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2007. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Soo S, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2007. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Blum AL, Talley NJ, O'Morain C, et al. Lack of effect of treating Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with nonulcer dyspepsia. Omeprazole plus Clarithromycin and Amoxicillin Effect One Year after Treatment (OCAY) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1875–1881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Koelz HR, Arnold R, Stolte M, et al. Treatment of Helicobacter pylori (HP) does not improve symptoms of functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 1998;114:A182. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chiba N, van Zanten SJ, Sinclair P, et al. Treating Helicobacter pylori infection in primary care patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia: the Canadian adult dyspepsia empiric treatment-Helicobacter pylori positive (CADET-Hp) randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002;324:1012–1016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Raghunath AS, Hungin AP, Mason J, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication in long-term proton pump inhibitor users in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007;25:585–592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Delaney BC, Moayyedi P, Forman D. Initial management strategies for dyspepsia. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2007. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ford AC, Qume M, Moayyedi P, et al. Helicobacter pylori "test and treat" or endoscopy for managing dyspepsia: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2005;128:1838–1844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hu WHC, Lam SK, Lam CLK, et al. Comparison between empirical prokinetics, Helicobacter test-and-treat and empirical endoscopy in primary-care patients presenting with dyspepsia: a one-year study. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:5010–5016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jarbol DE, Bech M, Kragstrup J, et al. Economic evaluation of empirical antisecretory therapy versus Helicobacter pylori test for management of dyspepsia: a randomized trial in primary care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22:362–371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lassen AT, Pedersen FM, Bytzer P, et al. Helicobacter pylori "test and eradicate" versus prompt endoscopy for management of dyspeptic patients: a randomised trial. Lancet 2000;356:455–460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Heaney A, Collins JSA, Watson RGP, et al. A prospective randomised trial of a "test and treat" policy versus endoscopy based management in young Helicobacter pylori positive patients with ulcer-like dyspepsia, referred to a hospital clinic. Gut 1999;45:186–190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Duggan A, Elliott C, Logan RPH, et al. Does "near patient" H. pylori testing in primary care reduce referral for endoscopy? Results from a randomised trial. Gastroenterology 1998;114:G0451. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Quick reference guide. Dyspepsia – management of dyspepsia in adults in primary care. August 2004. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10950/29458/29458.pdf (last accessed 07 September 2010). [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gene E, Calvet X, Azagra R, et al. Triple vs. quadruple therapy for treating Helicobacter pylori infection: a meta-analysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;17:1137–1143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gene E, Calvet X, Azagra R, et al. Triple vs quadruple therapy for treating Helicobacter pylori infection: an updated meta-analysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;18:543–544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lee JM, Breslin NP, Hyde DK, et al. Treatment options for Helicobacter pylori infection when proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy fails in clinical practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999;13:489–496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Magaret N, Burm M, Faigel D, et al. A randomized trial of lansoprazole, amoxycillin, and clarithromycin versus lansoprazole, bismuth, metronidazole and tetracycline in the retreatment of patients failing initial Helicobacter pylori therapy. Digest Dis 2001;19:174–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Peitz U, Sulliga M, Wolle K, et al. High rate of post-therapeutic resistance after failure of macrolide-nitroimidazole triple therapy to cure Helicobacter pylori infection: impact of two second-line therapies in a randomized study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002;16:315–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Moayyedi P. Sequential therapy regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Lancet 2007;370:1010–1012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gisbert JP, Gonzalez L, Calvet X, et al. Proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin and either amoxycillin or nitroimidazole: a meta-analysis of eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000;14:1319–1328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Antelo P, Almuzara M, Avagnina A, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Its relationship with gastrointestinal ulcer and antimicrobial resistance. Medicina 2001;61:545–551. [In Spanish] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bochenek WJ, Peters S, Fraga PD, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori by 7-day triple-therapy regimens combining pantoprazole with clarithromycin, metronidazole, or amoxicillin in patients with peptic ulcer disease: results of two double-blind, randomized studies. Helicobacter 2003;8:626–642. [Erratum appears in Helicobacter. 2004;9:183.] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wang X, Fang JY, Lu R, et al. A meta-analysis: comparison of esomeprazole and other proton pump inhibitors in eradicating Helicobacter pylori. Digestion 2006;73:178–186. [Erratum appears in Digestion. 2006;74(3–4):235.] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gisbert JP, Khorrami S, Calvet X, et al. Pantoprazole-based therapies in Helicobacter pylori eradication: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;16:89–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gisbert JP, Khorrami S, Calvet X, et al. Systematic review: Rabeprazole-based therapies in Helicobacter pylori eradication. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;17:751–764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Vergara M, Vallve M, Gisbert JP, et al. Meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of different proton-pump inhibitors in triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;18:647–654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zheng Q, Wu SM, Ke MY, et al. Rabeprazole-based triple therapy versus omeprazole-based triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled study. Chinese J Gastroenterol 2002;7:272–276. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hawkey CJ, Atherton JC, Treichel HC, et al. Safety and efficacy of 7-day rabeprazole- and omeprazole-based triple therapy regimens for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in patients with documented peptic ulcer disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;17:1065–1074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Uygun A, Kadayifci A, Yesilova Z, et al. Recent success of pantoprazole- or lansoprazole-based clarithromycin plus amoxicillin treatment in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori Turk J Gastroenterol 2004;15:219–224 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Huang JQ, Hunt RH. The importance of clarithromycin dose in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection: a meta-analysis of triple therapies with a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin and amoxycillin or metronidazole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999;13:719–729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Higuchi K, Maekawa T, Nakagawi K, et al. Efficacy and safety of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy with omeprazole, amoxicillin and high- and low-dose clarithromycin in Japanese patients: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre study. Clin Drug Invest 2006;26:403–414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Sugiyama T, Asaka M. Eradication effect of lansoprazole-based triple therapy against H. pylori. Nippon Rinsho 2004;62:483–488. [In Japanese]. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kihira K, Satoh K, Saifuku K, et al. Rabeprazole, amoxycillin and low- or high-dose clarithromycin for cure of Helicobacter pylori infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000;14:1083–1087. [Erratum appears in Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000;14:1381.] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Janssen MJ, Laheij RJ, De Boer WA, et al. Meta-analysis: the influence of pre-treatment with a proton pump inhibitor on Helicobacter pylori eradication. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;21:341–345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Zheng SB, Xu FX. Short-term triple therapies with omeprazole, tinidazole plus clarithromycin for eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection in the elderly. Geriatrics Health Care 1997;3:17–18, 28. [In Chinese] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lind T, Megraud F, Unge P. The Mach 2 study: role of omeprazole in eradication of Helicobacter pylori with 1-week triple therapies. Gastroenterology 1999;116:248–253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Huang AH, Sheu BS, Yang HB, et al. Impact of Helicobacter pylori antimicrobial resistance on the outcome of 1-week lansoprazole-based triple therapy. J Formos Med Assoc 2000;99:704–709. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Houben MH, Hensen EF, Rauws EA, et al. Randomized trial of omeprazole and clarithromycin combined with either metronidazole or amoxycillin in patients with metronidazole-resistant or -susceptible Helicobacter pylori strains. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999;13:883–889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Lamouliatte H, Megraud F, Delchier JC, et al. Second-line treatment for failure to eradicate Helicobacter pylori: a randomized trial comparing four treatment strategies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;18:791–797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Poon SK, Chang CS, Su J, et al. Primary resistance to antibiotics and its clinical impact on the efficacy of Helicobacter pylori lansoprazole-based triple therapies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002;16:291–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Calvet X, Garcia N, Lopez T, et al. A meta-analysis of short versus long therapy with a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin and either metronidazole or amoxycillin for treating Helicobacter pylori infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000;14:603–609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Paoluzi P, Iacopini F, Crispino P, et al. 2-week triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is better than 1-week in clinical practice: a large prospective single-center randomized study. Helicobacter 2006;11:562–568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kim BG, Lee DH, Ye BD, et al. Comparison of 7-day and 14-day proton pump inhibitor-containing triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: neither treatment duration provides acceptable eradication rate in Korea. Helicobacter 2007;12:31–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Zagari RM, Bianchi-Porro G, Fiocca R, et al. Comparison of 1 and 2 weeks of omeprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication: the HYPER Study. Gut 2007;56:475–479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment in people with a confirmed duodenal ulcer

Summary

Eradication of H pylori: makes healing of duodenal ulcers more likely and reduces the risk of bleeding with gastric and duodenal ulcers, either alone or when added to antisecretory drug treatment. Eradication also greatly reduces the risk of recurrence of a duodenal ulcer.

We found no clinically important results from RCTs about the effects of eradication therapy on the prevention of gastrointestinal perforation or obstruction in people with duodenal ulcers.

Benefits and harms

Eradication treatment versus no eradication treatment:

We found one systematic review (search date 2005).

Ulcer healing

Eradication treatment compared with no eradication treatment Eradication treatment seems more effective at increasing duodenal healing (moderate-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer healing

Systematic review
207 people
2 RCTs in this analysis
Healing
76% with eradication treatment
42% with no treatment

RR for persistence 0.37
95% CI 0.26 to 0.53
NNT 3
95% CI 2 to 4
Moderate effect size eradication treatment

Ulcer recurrence

Eradication treatment compared with no eradication treatment Eradication treatment may be more effective at reducing ulcer recurrence (moderate-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer recurrence

Systematic review
2509 people
27 RCTs in this analysis
Recurrence
14% with eradication treatment
64% with no treatment

RR 0.20
95% CI 0.15 to 0.26
Results were heterogeneous because of differing eradication regimens and lengths of follow-up
Moderate effect size eradication treatment

Systematic review
531 people
5 RCTs in this analysis
Ulcer recurrence
8% with eradication treatment containing proton pump inhibitors
65% with no treatment

RR 0.14
95% CI 0.09 to 0.20
Large effect size eradication treatment containing proton pump inhibitors

Ulcer bleeding

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer perforation or obstruction

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

Systematic review
5614 people with duodenal ulcer or gastric ulcer
42 RCTs in this analysis
Adverse effects
22% with eradication treatment
8% with antisecretory drugs or no treatment

RR 2.24
95% CI 1.72 to 2.93
The review did not perform a separate analysis for people with duodenal ulcer and gastric ulcer
Moderate effect size antisecretory drugs or no treatment

Eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs:

We found one systematic review (search date 2003). The review assessed the effects of eradication treatment in people with previous peptic ulcer bleeding and did not differentiate between duodenal and gastric ulcers.

Ulcer bleeding

Eradication treatment compared with antisecretory drugs Eradication treatment is more effective at reducing ulcer bleeding compared with short-term or maintenance antisecretory drugs in people with duodenal or gastric ulcers (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer bleeding

Systematic review
355 people with previous peptic ulcer bleeding
6 RCTs in this analysis
Bleeding
5% with eradication treatment
24% with short-term antisecretory drugs alone with no maintenance antisecretory treatment

RR 0.23
95% CI 0.12 to 0.43
Moderate effect size eradication treatment

Systematic review
470 people with previous peptic ulcer bleeding
3 RCTs in this analysis
Bleeding
2% with eradication treatment
6% with short-term antisecretory drugs plus maintenance antisecretory treatment

RR 0.27
95% CI 0.09 to 0.77
Moderate effect size eradication treatment

Ulcer healing

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer recurrence

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer perforation or obstruction

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs versus antisecretory drugs alone:

We found one systematic review (search date 2005).

Ulcer healing

Eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs compared with antisecretory drugs alone Adding H pylori eradication treatment to antisecretory drugs is more effective at increasing duodenal ulcer healing than antisecretory drugs alone (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer healing

Systematic review
3910 people
34 RCTs in this analysis
Healing
83% with eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs for 1 month
81% with antisecretory drugs alone for 1 month

RR for ulcer persistence 0.66
95% CI 0.58 to 0.76
NNT for persistence 14
95% CI 11 to 20
Small effect size eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs

Ulcer recurrence

Eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs compared with antisecretory drugs alone Adding eradication treatment to antisecretory drugs may be no more effective than antisecretory drugs alone (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer recurrence

Systematic review
319 people
4 RCTs in this analysis
Recurrence after ulcer healing
12% with eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs for 1 month
16% with ongoing maintenance antisecretory drugs alone

RR 0.73
95% CI 0.42 to 1.25
Not significant

Ulcer bleeding

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer perforation or obstruction

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

We excluded analyses that grouped people by H pylori status at the end of the trial.

Adverse effects:

A systematic review (search date 1995) found that minor adverse effects were common with bismuth (40% of people), metronidazole (39%), clarithromycin (22%), and tinidazole (7%). Discontinuation of treatment because of severe adverse effects was rare (bismuth 4%, metronidazole 2%, clarithromycin 1%, and tinidazole <1%).

Ulcer recurrence:

Observational evidence from RCTs suggests that duodenal ulcer recurrence rates 1 year after treatment are lower in people with successful H pylori eradication treatment (recurrence rates in US RCTs: 20%, 95% CI 14% to 26% in people cured of H pylori v 56%, 95% CI 50% to 61% in people remaining infected). The recurrence rate in non-US trials was lower than in the US trials (6% for people cured of H pylori). The difference in recurrence rates may be partially explained by the marked loss to follow-up in the US trials (9%–41%). However, countries with low prevalence of H pylori infection also have a low prevalence of duodenal ulcers, but a greater proportion of those ulcers arise from causes other than H pylori; therefore, eradication may be less effective where H pylori prevalence is low. Poor adherence to H pylori eradication treatment, and the use of less effective regimens, may lead to increased antibiotic resistance in H pylori, but we found no direct evidence to support this. The harms of H pylori eradication treatment are mainly the minor short-term effects of the antibiotics, particularly nausea from metronidazole or clarithromycin, and diarrhoea. Bismuth may turn the stools black.

Clinical guide:

H pylori eradication is the treatment of choice for duodenal ulcers; it heals ulcers as effectively as acid suppression and effectively prevents recurrence.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment in people with a confirmed gastric ulcer

Summary

Eradication reduces recurrence after healing of a gastric ulcer; however, we don't know whether it increases healing of gastric ulcers.

Eradication of H pylori: reduces the risk of bleeding with gastric and duodenal ulcers when compared with antisecretory therapy alone.

We found no clinically important information from RCTs about the effects of eradication treatment on prevention of gastrointestinal obstruction or perforation in people with gastric ulcers.

Benefits and harms

Eradication treatment versus no eradication treatment:

We found one systematic review (search date 2005).

Ulcer recurrence

Eradication treatment compared with no eradication treatment Eradication treatment is more effective at reducing recurrence of gastric ulcer (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer recurrence

Systematic review
1104 people
11 RCTs in this analysis
Recurrence of gastric ulcer
14% with eradication treatment
58% with no treatment

RR 0.29
95% CI 0.20 to 0.42
NNT 3
95% CI 2 to 5
Moderate effect size eradication treatment

Ulcer healing

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer bleeding

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer perforation or obstruction

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

Systematic review
5614 people with duodenal ulcer or gastric ulcer
42 RCTs in this analysis
Adverse effects
22% with eradication treatment
8% with antisecretory drugs or no treatment

RR 2.24
95% CI 1.72 to 2.93
The review did not perform a separate analysis for people with duodenal ulcer and gastric ulcer
Moderate effect size antisecretory drugs or no treatment

Eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs:

We found one systematic review (search date 2003). The review assessed the effects of eradication treatment in people with previous peptic ulcer bleeding and did not differentiate between duodenal and gastric ulcers.

Ulcer bleeding

Eradication treatment compared with antisecretory drugs Eradication treatment is more effective at reducing ulcer bleeding compared with short-term or maintenance antisecretory drugs in people with duodenal or gastric ulcers (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer bleeding

Systematic review
355 people with previous peptic ulcer bleeding
6 RCTs in this analysis
Bleeding
5% with eradication treatment
24% with short-term antisecretory drugs alone with no maintenance antisecretory treatment

RR 0.23
95% CI 0.12 to 0.43
Moderate effect size eradication treatment

Systematic review
470 people with previous peptic ulcer bleeding
3 RCTs in this analysis
Bleeding
2% with eradication treatment
6% with short-term antisecretory drugs plus maintenance antisecretory treatment

RR 0.27
95% CI 0.09 to 0.77
Moderate effect size eradication treatment

Ulcer healing

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer recurrence

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer perforation or obstruction

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs versus antisecretory drugs alone:

We found one systematic review (search date 2005).

Ulcer healing

Eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs compared with antisecretory drugs alone Eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs is no more effective at increasing endoscopic healing compared with antisecretory drugs alone in people with gastric ulcers (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer healing

Systematic review
1572 people with gastric ulcers
14 RCTs in this analysis
Healing
78% with eradication treatment plus antisecretory drugs
86% with antisecretory drugs alone

RR for ulcer persistence 1.25
95% CI 0.88 to 1.76
Not significant

Ulcer recurrence

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer bleeding

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer perforation or obstruction

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

None.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment in people with NSAID-related peptic ulcers

Summary

We don't know whether eradication therapy is more effective than a single antisecretory drug alone at healing ulcers at 8 weeks in people taking NSAIDs who have bleeding peptic ulcers.

Benefits and harms

Eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs alone:

We found one RCT comparing H pylori eradication treatment versus a proton pump inhibitor alone in people with NSAID-related peptic ulcer.

Ulcer healing

Eradication treatment compared with antisecretory drugs alone Eradication treatment may be no more effective than a single antisecretory drug alone at healing ulcers in people taking NSAIDs who have bleeding peptic ulcers (low-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer healing

RCT
195 people with H pylori, using NSAIDs, and with bleeding peptic ulcers Healing rate 8 weeks
77/93 (83%) with eradication treatment (bismuth subcitrate plus tetracycline plus metronidazole plus omeprazole)
88/102 (86%) with omeprazole alone

P = 0.50
Not significant

Ulcer recurrence

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer bleeding

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Ulcer perforation or obstruction

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

None.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment for preventing recurrence of NSAID-related peptic ulcers in people with previous ulcers or dyspepsia

Summary

We don't know whether eradication of H pylori: reduces NSAID-related ulcers in people with previous ulcers.

Benefits and harms

Eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs alone:

We found two RCTs.

Ulcer prevention

Eradication treatment compared with antisecretory drugs alone We don't know how eradication treatment and antisecretory drugs alone compare at preventing peptic ulcers or bleeding from ulcers in people taking NSAIDs who have had previous ulcers (very low-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Ulcer prevention

RCT
102 people with H pylori and taking NSAIDs, with a history of dyspepsia or peptic ulceration, but without active ulcers Cumulative 6-month risk of peptic ulcer
12% with 1-week quadruple eradication regimen
34% with omeprazole alone for 1 week
Absolute numbers not reported

P = 0.009
Effect size not calculated quadruple eradication regimen

RCT
102 people with H pylori and taking NSAIDs, with a history of dyspepsia or peptic ulceration, but without active ulcers Cumulative 6-month risk of bleeding peptic ulcer
4% with 1-week quadruple eradication regimen
27% with omeprazole alone for 1 week
Absolute numbers not reported

P = 0.003
Effect size not calculated quadruple eradication regimen

RCT
150 people taking naproxen with H pylori and a bleeding peptic ulcer that healed with omeprazole treatment
Subgroup analysis
Cumulative 6-month risk of developing a bleeding ulcer
19% with 1-week triple eradication regimen (bismuth subcitrate plus tetracycline plus metronidazole)
4% with 6 months' maintenance treatment with omeprazole
Absolute numbers not reported

ARI 14.4%
95% CI 4.4% to 24.4%
Effect size not calculated omeprazole

RCT
250 people taking low-dose aspirin with H pylori and a bleeding peptic ulcer that healed with omeprazole treatment
Subgroup analysis
Cumulative 6-month risk of developing a bleeding ulcer
1.9% with 1-week triple eradication regimen (bismuth subcitrate plus tetracycline plus metronidazole)
0.9% with 6 months' maintenance treatment with omeprazole
Absolute numbers not reported

Absolute difference +1.0%
95% CI –1.9% to +3.9%
Given the much lower risk of bleeding with low-dose aspirin compared with naproxen, the RCT may have been underpowered with respect to aspirin, although a large absolute effect can be excluded
Not significant

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

Clinical guide:

The evidence on the effects of H pylori eradication treatment on recurrent bleeding from an NSAID-induced peptic ulcer is conflicting. However, even when H pylori eradication treatment is effective in reducing recurrent bleeding from an NSAID-induced peptic ulcer, the absolute risk of bleeding remains significant. Therefore discontinuation of NSAID treatment, or use of an additional preventative treatment, is desirable.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment for preventing NSAID-related peptic ulcers in people without previous ulcers

Summary

Eradication of H pylori: may reduce the risk of NSAID-related ulcers in people without previous ulcers.

Benefits and harms

H pylori eradication versus no treatment or placebo:

We found two RCTs.

Ulcer prevention

Eradication treatment compared with no treatment/placebo H pylori eradication treatment seems more effective at reducing the risk of developing a peptic ulcer at 5 to 8 weeks compared with placebo or no treatment in people without previous ulcers taking NSAIDs (moderate-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Peptic ulcers

RCT
100 H pylori-positive people requiring NSAID treatment and without any history of peptic ulceration or gastric surgery Peptic ulcer 8 weeks
3/45 (7%) with 1-week triple eradication regimen
12/47 (26%) with no eradication treatment

P = 0.01
Effect size not calculated triple eradication regimen

RCT
4-armed trial
832 people with H pylori and no history of ulcer, and requiring treatment with an NSAID Peptic ulcers 5 weeks
2/161 (1%) with 1-week triple eradication regimen
10/171 (6%) with placebo for 5 weeks

P <0.05 for 1-week triple eradication regimen v placebo
Analysis not by intention to treat
Effect size not calculated triple eradication regimen

RCT
4-armed trial
832 people with H pylori and no history of ulcer, and requiring treatment with an NSAID Peptic ulcers 5 weeks
2/173 (1%) with 1-week triple eradication regimen plus 4 weeks of omeprazole
10/171 (6%) with placebo for 5 weeks

P <0.05 for 1-week triple eradication regimen plus 4 weeks of omeprazole v placebo
Analysis not by intention to treat
Effect size not calculated triple eradication regimen

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

H pylori eradication treatment versus antisecretory drugs:

We found one RCT, which compared two eradication regimens, omeprazole alone, and placebo. The results of eradication treatment versus placebo from this RCT are reported above.

Ulcer prevention

Eradication treatment compared with antisecretory drugs We don't know how 1 week of triple eradication treatment and 1 week of triple eradication treatment plus omeprazole for 4 weeks compare at preventing peptic ulcers at 5 weeks in people without previous ulcers taking NSAIDs (low-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Peptic ulcers

RCT
4-armed trial
832 people with H pylori and no history of ulcer, requiring treatment with an NSAID Peptic ulcers 5 weeks
2/161 (1%) with 1-week triple eradication regimen
2/173 (1%) with 1-week triple eradication regimen plus 4 weeks of omeprazole
0/155 (0%) with omeprazole alone for 5 weeks

Reported no significant difference among active treatment groups
P value not reported
Analysis not by intention to treat
Not significant

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

Clinical guide:

It is likely that H pylori eradication will reduce the risk of ulceration with NSAIDs (but that risk is not reduced to zero), and other prophylactic treatments should be considered.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment in people with GORD

Summary

Eradication of H pylori: does not reduce symptoms of GORD.

Benefits and harms

H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo:

We found two RCTs.

Symptom improvement

Eradication treatment compared with placebo H pylori eradication treatment is no more effective at reducing symptoms at 1 to 2 years in people with GORD (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Symptom recurrence

RCT
190 H pylori-positive people with GORD but no duodenal ulcer Symptomatic relapse 1 year
83% with H pylori eradication treatment
83% with placebo

difference 0%
95% CI –11% to +11%
Not significant

RCT
People with GORD symptoms at baseline (number of people not clear)
Subgroup analysis
Heartburn 2 years
with H pylori eradication treatment
with placebo

OR 0.90
95% CI 0.71 to 1.14
Not significant

RCT
People with GORD symptoms at baseline (number of people not clear)
Subgroup analysis
Reflux 2 years
with H pylori eradication treatment
with placebo

OR 0.89
95% CI 0.62 to 1.29
Not significant

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

Case control studies have found an increased risk of reflux symptoms after H pylori eradication. However, discontinuation of antisecretory treatment after H pylori eradication might have unmasked symptoms of co-existing GORD.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment in people with localised B cell lymphoma of the stomach

Summary

Gastric B cell lymphoma lesions may regress after H pylori: eradication, but we don't know this for sure.

We found no clinically important results from RCTs about the effects of H pylori: eradication treatment in people with localised B cell gastric lymphoma (also known as mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue [ MALT ] lymphoma).

Benefits and harms

H pylori eradication therapy versus placebo or no treatment:

We found no systematic review or RCTs.

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

We found six prospective cohort studies of H pylori eradication in people with localised low-grade lymphomas. Tumour regression occurred in 60% to 93% of people, but responses were sometimes delayed, and some people relapsed within 1 year of treatment. A further uncontrolled study (28/34 [82%] people with B cell gastric lymphoma were found to be H pylori positive, and were given eradication treatment) found that 14/28 people (50%, 95% CI 31% to 69%) achieved complete remission at 18 months' follow-up.

Clinical guide:

Treatment options for primary gastric lymphoma include surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and H pylori eradication. We found no direct comparative studies.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment for prevention of gastric cancer

Summary

Despite the association between H pylori: infection and gastric cancer, no studies have shown a reduced risk after eradication treatment.

Benefits and harms

H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo for the prevention of gastric cancer in people at high risk of cancer:

We found no systematic review but found two RCTs of the effects of H pylori eradication on the development of gastric cancer. Both were conducted in populations at high risk of gastric cancer.

Prevention of gastric cancer

Eradication treatment compared with placebo Eradication treatment is no more effective at reducing the risk of developing gastric cancer in people at high risk of cancer (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Rate of gastric cancer

RCT
1630 people at high risk of gastric cancer Gastric cancer 7 years
7/817 (0.86%) with eradication treatment
11/813 (1.35%) with placebo

HR 0.63
95% CI 0.24 to 1.62
P = 0.34
Not significant

RCT
2258 people at high risk of gastric cancer Gastric cancer 7 years
19/1130 (1.7%) with eradication treatment
27/1128 (2.4%) with placebo

HR 0.70
95% CI 0.39 to 1.27
P = 0.14
Not significant

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo for regression of pre-cancerous lesions:

We found one RCT.

Regression of pre-cancerous lesions

Eradication treatment compared with placebo Eradication treatment is more effective at increasing regression of pre-cancerous lesions in people with gastric atrophy or intestinal metaplasia (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Regression of pre-cancerous lesions

RCT
4-armed trial
852 people with gastric atrophy or intestinal metaplasia found at screening endoscopy Atrophy
with eradication treatment
with no eradication treatment

RR 4.8
95% CI 1.6 to 14.2
Result calculated by multivariate modelling
Moderate effect size eradication treatment

RCT
4-armed trial
852 people with gastric atrophy or intestinal metaplasia found at screening endoscopy Intestinal metaplasia
with eradication treatment
with no eradication treatment

RR 3.1
95% CI 1.0 to 9.3
Result calculated by multivariate modelling
Moderate effect size eradication treatment

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo for the prevention of gastric cancer in people not at high risk:

We found no systematic review or RCTs.

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

In two of the identified RCTs, post hoc analysis suggested that gastric cancer is more likely to develop in people with pre-cancerous lesions at baseline. We found one systematic review of nested case control studies (search date 1999; 12 studies, 1228 cases, 3406 controls). In the absence of trial data, this is the best evidence of an association between H pylori infection and gastric cancer. The review found that overall there was a significant association between H pylori infection and the subsequent development of gastric cancer (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.81). The review found no significant association between H pylori and cardia cancer (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.35). It did find a significant association for non-cardia (distal) cancer (OR 2.97, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.77). The review also found a strong interaction with age and time from sample collection. H pylori does not colonise areas of cancer, intestinal metaplasia, or atrophy, and antibodies may be lost with increasing age. Prospective studies with a short time period between the collection of the serum sample and the development of the cancer, or retrospective studies, may underestimate the association. The review found a significant association between H pylori and non-cardia cancer, where the time from sampling to cancer was more than 10 years (OR 5.93, 95% CI 3.41 to 10.3). A systematic review of the role of eradication therapy in preventing gastric cancer in high-risk populations is registered with the Cochrane Collaboration, and is due for completion imminently.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment in people with confirmed non-ulcer dyspepsia

Summary

Eradicating H pylori: has been shown to reduce dyspeptic symptoms in people with non-ulcer dyspepsia compared with placebo.

Benefits and harms

H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo:

We found one systematic review (search date 2004). Two RCTs identified by the review assessed the effect of H pylori eradication on endoscopically assessed oesophagitis (see Adverse effects). See also adverse effects in option on eradication treatment for H pylori in people with confirmed duodenal ulcer.

Symptom improvement

Eradication treatment compared with placebo H pylori eradication treatment is more effective at reducing dyspeptic symptoms in people with non-ulcer dyspepsia at 3 to 12 months (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Dyspeptic symptoms

Systematic review
3186 people with H pylori and non-ulcer dyspepsia
13 RCTs in this analysis
Proportion with dyspeptic symptoms 3–12 months
1118/1742 (64%) with eradication treatment
1016/1444 (70%) with placebo

RR 0.92
95% CI 0.88 to 0.97
NNT 18
95% CI 12 to 48
Small effect size eradication treatment
Quality of life

Systematic review
839 people with H pylori and non-ulcer dyspepsia
3 RCTs in this analysis
Quality of life scores 3–12 months
with eradication treatment
with placebo

WMD –0.25
95% CI –3.49 to +2.99
Not significant

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Oesophagitis
People with non-ulcer dyspepsia
In review
Endoscopically assessed oesophagitis
5.7% with eradication treatment
2.9% with placebo

ARI +2.8%
95% CI –0.5% to +6.0%
RR 2.1
95% CI 0.9 to 4.6
No trial evaluated individual dyspeptic symptoms, so the effect on reflux symptoms cannot be estimated separately from epigastric pain
Not significant

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

Clinical guide:

H pylori eradication treatment results in a small but significant benefit in symptoms. This is similar to the benefit achieved by treatment with a proton pump inhibitor, but more cost-effective as the effect persists after treatment for at least 2 years and possibly longer.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Eradication treatment in people with uninvestigated dyspepsia

Summary

Eradicating H pylori: has been shown to reduce dyspeptic symptoms in people with uninvestigated dyspepsia compared with placebo.

Delaying endoscopy is not safe in people at increased risk of gastrointestinal malignancy.

Benefits and harms

H pylori eradication treatment versus placebo in people with uninvestigated dyspepsia:

We found two RCTs.

Symptom improvement

Eradication treatment compared with placebo Eradication treatment is more effective at increasing relief from dyspeptic symptoms at 1 year in people with H pylori infection (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Symptom improvement

RCT
294 people with dyspeptic symptoms and confirmed H pylori infection Proportion of people free of dyspeptic symptoms 1 year
41/145 (28%) with eradication treatment
22/149 (15%) with placebo

ARI 13%
95% CI 4% to 24%
P = 0.008
Effect size not calculated eradication treatment

RCT
184 people with H pylori infection and long-term proton pump inhibitor use Mean change in dyspepsia symptom scores from baseline (measured by Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire, score range 0–40) 1 year
–2.7 with eradication therapy
+0.4 with placebo

Mean difference –3.1
95% CI –5.3 to –0.9
P = 0.005
Effect size not calculated eradication treatment

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

RCT
184 people with H pylori infection and long-term proton pump inhibitor use Change in heartburn
+9% with eradication treatment
–5% with placebo

P = 0.13
Not significant

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Initial H pylori testing plus eradication treatment versus management based on initial endoscopy or versus empirical eradication treatment:

We found two systematic reviews (search dates 2004 and 2005) of people with dyspepsia not considered at high risk of gastrointestinal malignancy (see comment). Both reviews identified five RCTs, with four RCTs common to both reviews. However, the reviews performed different meta-analyses, and so we report both reviews here. Both reviews included open-label RCTs. We also found two subsequent RCTs.

Symptom improvement

H pylori testing plus eradication compared with management based on initial endoscopy H pylori testing and eradication treatment strategies and management based on initial endoscopy may be equally effective at reducing dyspepsia at 1 year in people at low risk of gastrointestinal malignancy (low-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Dyspeptic symptoms

Systematic review
2222 people with dyspeptic symptoms including those of GORD
5 RCTs in this analysis
Proportion of people with dyspeptic symptoms
264/836 (31%) with test-and-treat strategy
283/846 (33%) with endoscopy-based management

RR 0.95
95% CI 0.79 to 1.15
Calculated using random effects model
Significant statistical heterogeneity among studies; see further information on studies for full details
Results may not be generalisable to primary care; see further information on studies for full details
Not significant

Systematic review
1924 people with dyspeptic symptoms including those of GORD
5 RCTs in this analysis
Dyspeptic symptoms 1 year
with test-and-treat strategy
with endoscopy-based management
Absolute results reported graphically

RR 0.95
95% CI 0.2 to 0.99
Individual patient data meta-analysis
No heterogeneity among RCTs; see further information on studies for full details
Small effect size endoscopy-based management

RCT
3-armed trial
234 people with dyspeptic symptoms Decrease in mean dyspepsia severity score (assessed on a 12-item dyspepsia symptom severity score) 6 weeks
5.6 with empirical endoscopy
5.6 with eradication treatment
4.4 with empirical treatment with cisapride

Significance not assessed

RCT
3-armed trial
234 people with dyspeptic symptoms Decrease in mean dyspepsia severity score (assessed on a 12-item dyspepsia symptom severity score) 1 year
with empirical endoscopy
with eradication treatment
with empirical treatment with cisapride

Among-group difference reported as not significant
P value not reported
Not significant

RCT
3-armed trial
722 people with dyspeptic symptoms
Data from 1 RCT
Proportion of people who were asymptomatic 1 year
26% with test-and-eradicate strategy
23% with empirical proton pump inhibitor for 1 week
22% with empirical proton pump inhibitor for 1 week, plus, if symptoms improved, test-and-eradicate strategy as needed
Absolute numbers not reported

Among-group difference reported as not significant
P value not reported
Not significant

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

RCT
People with dyspeptic symptoms
In review
Adverse effects
with test-and-eradicate strategy
with endoscopy-based management

RCT
People with dyspeptic symptoms
In review
Adverse effects
with test-and-eradicate strategy
with endoscopy-based management

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

Heterogeneity The review reported significant statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.035; review set statistical heterogeneity as significant if P <0.05) among the RCTs because of inclusion of one RCT that found positive results in favour of endoscopy; the other four did not.Generalisability The results of the review might not apply directly to primary care, where people with less severe dyspepsia might be treated and H pylori eradication rates might be lower, and the reassuring or anxiety-provoking effect of specialist consultation might not be replicated.

The review found no heterogeneity among the RCTs and suggested that this was possibly because of its exclusion of non-dyspeptic symptoms or because the analysis contained two primary care trials. One of the included RCTs was conducted in a hospital setting, three in primary care, and the fifth in both primary and secondary care. The RCT conducted in a hospital setting stipulated that all eligible people with dyspepsia consulting with a general medical practitioner should be included.

Comment

Clinical guide:

The results of the systematic review were in people at low risk of gastrointestinal malignancy and are not applicable to all people with dyspepsia. People with "alarm" symptoms (e.g., dysphagia, weight loss, jaundice, epigastric mass, or anaemia) or over the age of 55 years, with either continuous epigastric pain or first onset of symptoms in the previous year, may have a significant risk of upper gastrointestinal malignancy, and may benefit from prompt endoscopy. The small effects of endoscopy on symptoms observed in this review must be interpreted in the light of cost-effectiveness. In particular, the cost of endoscopy in many locations would not be warranted on the basis of such a small effect, and most guidelines (such as that of NICE) advocate either H pylori "test and treat" or empirical acid suppression, rather than initial endoscopy, on the grounds of cost-effectiveness.

Substantive changes

H pylori eradication (in uninvestigated dyspepsia) Three RCTs added. The first RCT found that eradication treatment was more effective at improving dyspepsia symptoms than placebo in long-term proton pump inhibitor users. The other two RCTs found similar dyspepsia scores with test and treat, prompt endoscopy, and empirical eradication treatment. Categorisation unchanged (beneficial).

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Quadruple regimens versus triple regimens as first-line treatment

Summary

Quadruple and triple regimens seem equally effective at eradicating H pylori: as first-line treatments.

Benefits and harms

Quadruple regimen versus triple regimen as first-line treatment:

We found one systematic review that was updated soon after its initial publication (search dates 2002 and 2003) comparing triple regimens versus quadruple regimens (either 7 or 10 days; both given for the same duration) as a first-line treatment.

Eradication rates

Quadruple regimens compared with triple regimens Quadruple regimens are no more effective as first-line treatment at clearing H pylori infection (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Eradication rates

Systematic review
1128 people
5 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates time of measurement not reported
451/569 (79%) with triple regimen
449/559 (80%) with quadruple regimen

OR 1.00
95% CI 0.64 to 1.57
P = 1.00
Updated meta-analysis reported here was published as a letter to the editor; results should be interpreted with caution
Not significant

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

Systematic review
1128 people
5 RCTs in this analysis
Adverse effects
34% with triple regimen
37% with quadruple regimen

OR 1.14
95% CI 0.76 to 1.7
P = 0.54
Updated meta-analysis reported here was published as a letter to the editor; results should be interpreted with caution
Not significant

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

When assessing quadruple regimens, we have included only regimens consisting of a proton pump inhibitor, a bismuth salt (either bismuth citrate, bismuth subsalicylate, bismuth subnitrate, or tripotassium dicitratobismuthate), a nitroimidazole (either metronidazole or tinidazole), and tetracycline.

Clinical guide:

The rationale for quadruple regimens is that they can be used as second-line treatment, giving different antibiotics than those commonly given with current triple treatments, thus reducing the likelihood of resistance (see option on quadruple versus triple regimens for second-line treatment).

Substantive changes

H pylori eradication treatments (quadruple regimens compared with triple regimens as first-line treatment) One systematic review results updated and published as a letter to the editor. The review found no significant difference in eradication rates between quadruple regimens and triple regimens. Categorisation changed from Likely to be beneficial to Unlikely to be beneficial with the rationale that quadruple regimens are no more effective than triple regimens. Adding a fourth drug to initial eradication treatment confers no additional benefit.

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Quadruple regimens versus triple regimens as second-line treatment

Summary

Quadruple regimens may be more effective as second-line treatment than triple regimens when a first-line triple regimen has failed to eradicate the infection. However, the evidence is limited in that, in comparisons of second-line quadruple versus triple regimens, most triple regimens did not contain a nitroimidazole.

Benefits and harms

Quadruple regimens versus triple regiments as second-line treatment:

We found no systematic review but found three RCTs assessing the effects of salvage therapy after failure of first-line treatment.

Eradication rates

Quadruple regimens compared with triple regimens Quadruple regimens may be more effective at clearing H pylori infection as second-line treatment (low-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Eradication rates

RCT
3-armed trial
60 people with dyspepsia and persistent H pylori infection after treatment with amoxicillin-based or metronidazole-based triple regimens Eradication rates
15/22 (68%) with quadruple regimen for 7 days
4/12 (33%) with repeat triple regimen for 7 days

P = 0.02 for quadruple regimen v repeat triple regimen (7 days)
Effect size not calculated quadruple regimen

RCT
3-armed trial
60 people with dyspepsia and persistent H pylori infection after treatment with amoxicillin-based or metronidazole-based triple regimens Eradication rates
15/22 (68%) with quadruple regimen for 7 days
16/22 (73%) with repeat triple regimen for 14 days

P = 0.71 for quadruple regimen v repeat triple regimen (14 days)
Not significant

RCT
48 people with persistent H pylori infection after treatment with a triple regimen Eradication rates
20/28 (71%) with 14-day quadruple regimen
15/20 (75%) with 14-day triple regimen

P = 0.78
Not significant

RCT
84 people with persistent H pylori infection after treatment with a metronidazole-based triple regimen Eradication rates
27/40 (68%) with 7-day quadruple regimen
19/44 (43%) with 7-day triple regimen

P = 0.03
The RCT was terminated early (after recruiting 84 people); see further information on studies for full details
Effect size not calculated quadruple regimen

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

RCT
48 people with persistent H pylori infection after treatment with a triple regimen Adverse effects
84% with quadruple regimen
82% with triple regimen
Absolute numbers not reported

P = 0.85
Not significant

RCT
84 people with persistent H pylori infection after treatment with a metronidazole-based triple regimen Mild or moderate adverse effects
45% with quadruple regimen
66% with triple regimen
Absolute numbers not reported

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

The RCT compared a quadruple regimen containing omeprazole plus tripotassium dicitratobismuthate plus metronidazole plus tetracycline (22 people) for 7 days, repeat triple regimens for 7 days (12 people), and repeat triple regimens for 14 days (22 people). Repeat triple regimens were prescribed on the basis of previous antimicrobial resistance profiles, with alternative regimens to first-line treatment being given.

The RCT compared a 14-day quadruple regimen containing lansoprazole plus bismuth subsalicylate plus metronidazole plus tetracycline versus a 14-day triple regimen containing lansoprazole plus amoxicillin plus clarithromycin.

The RCT compared a 7-day quadruple regimen containing omeprazole plus bismuth subsalicylate plus metronidazole plus tetracycline versus a 7-day triple regimen containing omeprazole plus amoxicillin plus clarithromycin. Early termination The RCT was terminated early (after recruiting 84 people) because of poor H pylori eradication rates in people receiving the triple regimen and because the difference in eradication rates between the two regimens was larger than anticipated.

Comment

None.

Substantive changes

H pylori eradication treatments (quadruple regimens compared with triple regimens as second-line treatment) New option for which we found three RCTs. The RCTs found that quadruple regimens as second-line therapies were more effective than triple regimens at eradicating H pylori. Most triple regimens given did not contain a nitroimidazole. Categorised as Likely to be beneficial.

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Sequential regimens versus triple regimens as first-line treatment

Summary

Ten-day sequential therapy may be more effective at eradicating H pylori: than a 7-day triple regimen.

Adverse effects were similar between sequential and triple regimens.

Benefits and harms

Sequential eradication regimens versus triple eradication regimens as first-line treatment:

We found one systematic review (search date not reported) comparing sequential therapy versus triple regimens for 7 or 10 days.

Eradication rates

Sequential eradication regimens compared with 1-week triple regimens Sequential regimens may be more effective than triple regimens given for 7 or 10 days (low-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Eradication rates

Systematic review
2146 people
6 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
with sequential regimens
with 7-day triple regimens
Absolute numbers not reported

RR 0.81
95% CI 0.78 to 0.84
Results must be interpreted with caution; the review was published as a commentary article and has not been peer reviewed
Small effect size sequential regimens

Systematic review
770 people
6 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
with sequential regimens
with 10-day triple regimens
Absolute numbers not reported

RR 0.86
95% CI 0.81 to 0.91
Results must be interpreted with caution; the review was published as a commentary article and has not been peer reviewed
Small effect size sequential regimens

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

Systematic review
Adverse effects
with sequential regimen
with 7-day or 10-day triple regimens

Further information on studies

None.

Comment

When assessing sequential therapy, we have assessed only 5 days of dual therapy using a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin followed by a 5-day triple regimen using a proton pump inhibitor plus a macrolide plus a nitroimidazole.

Clinical guide:

The authors of the review noted that the RCTs identified were often written by similar authors and originated from the same centres in Italy. Therefore, more trials are needed by other groups comparing sequential regimens versus proton pump inhibitor triple therapy and quadruple therapy before we can be certain of the efficacy of this approach in the general population.

Substantive changes

H pylori eradication treatments (sequential regimens compared with triple regimens as first-line treatment) New option for which we found one systematic review. The review found sequential therapy was more effective at increasing H pylori eradication rates compared with proton pump inhibitor triple regimens. Categorised as Likely to be beneficial.

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Different triple regimens versus each other as first-line treatment

Summary

Nitroimidazole-based triple regimens and amoxicillin-based triple regimens seem equally effective at eradicating H pylori: . High-dose clarithromycin within an amoxicillin-based triple regimen seems more effective at eradicating H pylori: than low-dose clarithromycin. However, the dose of clarithromycin within a nitroimidazole-based triple regimen does not seem to have an effect on eradication rates.

Triple regimens using different proton pump inhibitors seem equally effective at eradicating H pylori: .

Pre-treatment with a proton pump inhibitor before triple regimen does not seem to increase H pylori: eradication rates compared with no pre-treatment.

Benefits and harms

Nitroimidazole-based versus amoxicillin-based triple regimens as first-line treatment:

We found one systematic review (search date 1999; 22 RCTs; number of people not reported) and three subsequent RCTs comparing nitroimidazole-based triple regimens versus amoxicillin-based triple regimens. Two of the RCTs were of a similar design and were reported in one publication.

Eradication rates

Nitroimidazole-based compared with amoxicillin-based triple regimens Nitroimidazole-based triple regimens and amoxicillin-based triple regimens are equally effective at eradicating H pylori (moderate-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Eradication rates

Systematic review
2862 people
18 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
1174/1456 (81%) with nitroimidazole-based regimens
1133/1406 (81%) with amoxicillin-based regimens

OR 1.00
95% CI 0.83 to 1.22
Significant statistical heterogeneity among RCTs (P = 0.14; statistical heterogeneity defined by the review as significant if P <0.2)
Not significant

Systematic review
893 people
7 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
360/443 (81%) with amoxicillin-based regimens containing lower-dose clarithromycin (250 mg twice daily)
388/450 (86%) with nitroimidazole-based regimens containing lower-dose clarithromycin (250 mg twice daily)

Peto OR 0.68
95% CI 0.48 to 0.98
Small effect size nitroimidazole-based regimens

RCT
3-armed trial
120 people with H pylori infection and dyspeptic symptoms or a history of peptic ulcer Eradication rates
83% with 7-day metronidazole-based regimen (containing omeprazole plus clarithromycin)
92% with 7-day amoxicillin-based regimen (containing omeprazole plus clarithromycin)
Absolute numbers not reported

Significance not assessed

RCT
People with H pylori infection and active peptic ulcers or a history of peptic ulcer Eradication rates
73%, 95% CI 65% to 81% with metronidazole-based regimen
65%, 95% CI 57% to 75% with amoxicillin-based regimen
Absolute numbers not reported

Significance of between-group difference not assessed

RCT
People with H pylori infection and active peptic ulcers or a history of peptic ulcer Eradication rates
81%, 95% CI 73% to 88% with metronidazole-based regimens
65%, 95% CI 56% to 73% with amoxicillin-based regimens
Absolute numbers not reported

Significance of between-group difference not assessed

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

RCT
3-armed trial
120 people with H pylori infection and dyspeptic symptoms or a history of peptic ulcer Proportion of people reporting an adverse effect
16/35 (46%) with 7-day metronidazole-based regimen
19/39 (48%) with 7-day amoxicillin-based regimen

Significance assessment between groups not reported

RCT
3-armed trial
120 people with H pylori infection and dyspeptic symptoms or a history of peptic ulcer Total number of adverse effects reported (could be >1 per person)
31 with 7-day metronidazole-based regimen
19 with 7-day amoxicillin-based regimen

P = 0.02
Effect size not calculated amoxicillin-based regimen

RCT
1016 people with H pylori infection and active peptic ulcers or a history of peptic ulcer, 581 of whom received a triple regimen Adverse effects
with metronidazole-based regimens
with amoxicillin-based regimens
Absolute numbers not reported

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Triple regimens using different proton pump inhibitors versus each other as first-line treatment:

We found four systematic reviews (search date 2000; search date 2002) and three subsequent RCTs. All systematic reviews identified some RCTs in common but none completely superseded another and all performed different meta-analyses. Therefore, we report results of all the reviews here.

Eradication rates

Triple regimens using different proton pump inhibitors compared with each other No one proton pump inhibitor-based regimen is more effective at eradicating H pylori compared with other proton pump inhibitor regimens (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Eradication rates

Systematic review
2159 people
11 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
963/1117 (86%) with esomeprazole-based triple regimens
843/1029 (82%) with omeprazole- or pantoprazole-based triple regimens

OR 1.38
95% CI 1.09 to 1.75
Small effect size esomeprazole-based regimens

Systematic review
833 people
2 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
364/415 (88%) with omeprazole-based triple regimen
372/418 (89%) with esomeprazole-based triple regimen

OR 0.89
95% CI 0.58 to 1.35
Not significant

Systematic review
1596 people
6 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
689/811 (85%) with esomeprazole-based triple regimens
649/785 (83%) with omeprazole- or pantoprazole-based triple regimens

OR 1.17
95% CI 0.89 to 1.54
Not significant

Systematic review
1337 people
7 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
444/534 (83%) with pantoprazole-based triple regimens
486/603 (81%) with triple regimens based on other proton pump inhibitors

OR 1.00
95% CI 0.61 to 1.64
Not significant

Systematic review
2226 people
12 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
852/1076 (79%) with rabeprazole-based triple regimens
886/1150 (77%) with triple regimens based on other proton pump inhibitors

OR 1.21
95% CI 0.97 to 1.52
The analysis includes one RCT comparing rabeprazole-based triple regimen versus a proton pump inhibitor-based dual regimen
Not significant

Systematic review
550 people
3 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
264/326 (81%) with lansoprazole-based triple regimen
192/224 (86%) with rabeprazole-based triple regimen

OR 0.77
95% CI 0.48 to 1.22
Not significant

Systematic review
1085 people
6 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
399/534 (75%) with omeprazole-based triple regimen
419/551 (76%) with lansoprazole-based triple regimen

OR 0.91
95% CI 0.69 to 1.21
Not significant

Systematic review
825 people
4 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
328/421 (78%) with omeprazole-based triple regimen
328/404 (81%) with rabeprazole-based triple regimen

OR 0.81
95% CI 0.58 to 1.15
Not significant

RCT
101 people with H pylori infection and active duodenal ulcers Eradication rates
81% with rabeprazole-based triple regimen for 7 days (including clarithromycin plus amoxicillin)
70% with omeprazole-based triple regimen for 7 days (including clarithromycin plus amoxicillin)

P >0.05
Not significant

RCT
345 people with H pylori infection and current or previously active peptic ulcers Eradication rates
77% with rabeprazole-based triple regimen for 7 days
75% with omeprazole-based triple regimen for 7 days

difference: +2%
95% CI −7% to +10%
Not significant

RCT
90 people with H pylori infection and non-ulcer dyspepsia Eradication rates 6 weeks
28/45 (62%) with pantoprazole-based triple regimen for 14 days (including clarithromycin plus amoxicillin)
27/45 (60%) with lansoprazole-based triple regimen for 14 days (including clarithromycin plus amoxicillin)

P >0.05
Not significant

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

RCT
345 people with H pylori infection and current or previously active peptic ulcers Adverse effects
with rabeprazole-based triple regimen for 7 days
with omeprazole-based triple regimen for 7 days

RCT
90 people with H pylori infection and non-ulcer dyspepsia Rate of adverse effects
with pantoprazole-based triple regimen for 14 days (including clarithromycin plus amoxicillin)
with lansoprazole-based triple regimen for 14 days (including clarithromycin plus amoxicillin)

Reported as not significant
P value not reported
Not significant

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Higher-dose clarithromycin-based triple regimens versus lower-dose clarithromycin-based triple regimens as first-line treatment:

We found one systematic review (search date 1998; 4 RCTs; 385 people) and three subsequent RCTs comparing higher versus lower doses of clarithromycin within triple regimens.

Eradication rates

Higher-dose clarithromycin compared with lower-dose clarithromycin within triple regimens Amoxicillin-based triple regimens are more effective at eradicating H pylori when higher-dose clarithromycin is used. The dose of clarithromycin does not seem to affect the efficacy of nitroimidazole-based triple regimens (moderate-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Eradication rates

Systematic review
Number of people in analysis not reported Eradication rates
80% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily (with proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin)
90% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily (with proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin)
Absolute numbers not reported

RR 0.89
95% CI 0.81 to 0.97
NNT 11
95% CI 6 to 38
Small effect size higher-dose clarithromycin (with amoxicillin)

Systematic review
Number of people in analysis not reported Eradication rates
87% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily (with proton pump inhibitor and metronidazole)
89% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily (with proton pump inhibitor and metronidazole)
Absolute numbers not reported

RR 0.98
95% CI 0.93 to 1.04
Not significant

RCT
288 people with H pylori infection and peptic ulcers Eradication rates
116/143 (81%) with triple regimen using 200 mg clarithromycin twice daily (with omeprazole and amoxicillin)
116/145 (80%) with triple regimen using 400 mg clarithromycin twice daily (with omeprazole and amoxicillin)

Significance not assessed

RCT
189 people with gastric ulcers, all positive for H pylori
Subgroup analysis
Eradication rates
88% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 200 mg twice daily (with lansoprazole and amoxicillin)
89% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 400 mg twice daily (with lansoprazole and amoxicillin)

Significance not assessed

RCT
188 people with duodenal ulcers, all positive for H pylori
Subgroup analysis
Eradication rates
91.3% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 200 mg twice daily (with lansoprazole and amoxicillin)
84% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 400 mg twice daily (with lansoprazole and amoxicillin)

Significance not assessed

RCT
100 people with H pylori infection and a healed peptic ulcer or non-ulcer dyspepsia Eradication rates
43/50 (86%) with 7-day triple regimen with clarithromycin 200 mg twice daily (with rabeprazole and amoxicillin)
47/50 (94%) with 7-day triple regimen with clarithromycin 400 mg twice daily (with rabeprazole and amoxicillin)

Reported as not significant
P value not reported
Not significant

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

Systematic review
Number of people in analysis not reported Proportion of people with adverse effects
21% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily (with proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin)
22% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily (with proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin)
Absolute numbers not reported

P = 0.77
Not significant

Systematic review
Number of people in analysis not reported Proportion of people with adverse effects
40% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily (with proton pump inhibitor and metronidazole)
30% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily (with proton pump inhibitor and metronidazole)
Absolute numbers not reported

P <0.0001
Effect size not calculated triple regimen with lower-dose clarithromycin (with metronidazole)

RCT
288 people with H pylori infection and peptic ulcers Adverse effects (not specified)
67/143 (47%) with triple regimen with 200 mg clarithromycin twice daily (with omeprazole and amoxicillin)
76/145 (52%) with triple regimen with 400 mg clarithromycin twice daily (with omeprazole and amoxicillin)

Significance not assessed

RCT
377 people with either gastric or duodenal ulcers, all positive for H pylori Adverse effects
47% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 200 mg twice daily (with lansoprazole and amoxicillin)
54% with triple regimen with clarithromycin 400 mg twice daily (with lansoprazole and amoxicillin)

Significance not assessed

RCT
100 people with H pylori infection and a healed peptic ulcer or non-ulcer dyspepsia Adverse effects
with 7-day triple regimen with clarithromycin 400 mg twice daily (with rabeprazole and amoxicillin)
with 7-day triple regimen with clarithromycin 200 mg twice daily (with rabeprazole and amoxicillin)

Reported as not significant
P value not reported
Not significant

Pre-treatment with proton pump inhibitor versus no pre-treatment:

We found one systematic review (search date 2004; 9 RCTs; 773 people) comparing H pylori eradication rates with a pre-treatment proton pump inhibitor versus no pre-treatment. The review carried out separate meta-analysis assessing the effects of proton pump inhibitor pre-treatment on two different triple proton pump inhibitor triple regimens: trials assessing a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin plus amoxicillin (172 people), and trials assessing a proton pump inhibitor plus a macrolide plus a nitroimidazole (241 people).

Eradication rates

Pre-treatment with proton pump inhibitor compared with no pre-treatment Pre-treatment with a proton pump inhibitor is no more effective at increasing eradication rates (high-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Eradication rates

Systematic review
172 people Eradication rates
71% with pre-treatment
70% with no pre-treatment

ARR +3%
95% CI −10% to +16%
Not significant

Systematic review
241 people Eradication rates
91% with pre-treatment
83% with no pre-treatment

ARR +7%
95% CI −1% to +16%
Not significant

Adverse effects

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

People were randomised into one of two study groups (A or B) and received triple regimens containing: pantoprazole plus clarithromycin plus metronidazole (289 people); or pantoprazole plus clarithromycin plus amoxicillin (292 people). The RCTs did not directly compare H pylori eradication rates between the two triple regimens.

Comment

When assessing triple eradication regimens, we have included only regimens consisting of a proton pump inhibitor plus two antibiotics chosen among clarithromycin, amoxicillin, or a nitroimidazole (either metronidazole or tinidazole).

We identified one Chinese RCT comparing short-term triple regimen with omeprazole plus tinidazole plus clarithromycin for eradication of H pylori infection in older adults. However, we could not obtain a copy of the full paper for assessment.

Clinical guide:

Antibiotic resistance with different triple regimens:

We found one systematic review (search date 1995; 19 RCTs; 1006 people with metronidazole-sensitive H pylori, 452 with metronidazole-resistant H pylori) and three subsequent RCTs in which data were analysed to examine effects of resistance on eradication rate.

We found two additional RCTs that did not meet our quality inclusion criteria but provided useful data on eradication rates in people with H pylori strains resistant or sensitive to antibiotics included in the eradication regimen.

The systematic review found that, in laboratory tests, nitroimidazole-based regimens achieved H pylori eradication in significantly fewer people showing nitroimidazole-resistant strains than in people with nitroimidazole-sensitive strains (99%, 95% CI 97% to 100% with sensitive strains v 69%, 95% CI 60% to 77% with resistant strains). The review concluded that a clinically important reduction of eradication rates is unlikely if the proportion of resistant strains is below 25%.

The first subsequent RCT (114 people with a confirmed duodenal ulcer and H pylori infection, 33 of whom had primary metronidazole resistance and 81 of whom had no resistance) found that metronidazole resistance significantly decreased the H pylori eradication rate with an omeprazole plus metronidazole plus clarithromycin regimen (77/81 [95%] with no metronidazole resistance v 25/33 [76%] with metronidazole resistance; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.93).

The second subsequent RCT (112 people with dyspeptic symptoms and H pylori infection) assessed the effects of antimicrobial resistance on H pylori eradication rates with 7-day proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimens containing metronidazole or clarithromycin. The RCT found that people with metronidazole-resistant isolates (primary metronidazole resistance) had significantly higher eradication failure rates compared with people with metronidazole-susceptible isolates (failure rates: 9/19 [47%] with metronidazole-resistant isolates v 7/44 [16%] with metronidazole-susceptible isolates; P <0.05). Similarly, people with clarithromycin-resistant isolates (primary clarithromycin resistance) had significantly higher eradication failure rates compared with people with clarithromycin-susceptible isolates (failure rates: 4/4 [100%] with clarithromycin-resistant isolates v 7/66 [11%] with clarithromycin-susceptible isolates; P <0.05).

The third subsequent RCT (122 people with dyspeptic symptoms and H pylori infection) stratified people into a metronidazole-resistant and a metronidazole-susceptible group prior to randomisation. It compared omeprazole plus metronidazole plus clarithromycin with omeprazole plus amoxicillin plus clarithromycin for 1 week. The RCT found no significant difference in H pylori eradication rates between the amoxicillin-based regimen and metronidazole-based regimens in people with metronidazole-susceptible strains (23/26 [88%] with an amoxicillin-based regimen v 21/26 [81%] with metronidazole-based regimen; P = 0.11; ITT analysis). However, the RCT found that H pylori eradication rates were significantly higher with the amoxicillin-based regimen compared with the metronidazole-based regimen in people with metronidazole-resistant strains (30/35 [86%] with an amoxicillin-based regimen v 29/35 [83%] with a metronidazole-based regimen; P = 0.02; ITT analysis).

The first additional open-label RCT (287 people with H pylori infection and a history of peptic ulcer or dyspeptic symptoms) assessed H pylori eradication rates with second-line therapy according to antibiotic susceptibility in people who had failed first-line eradication therapy. The RCT found that, in a subgroup of 118 people given clarithromycin plus omeprazole plus amoxicillin, H pylori eradication rates were lower in people with primary clarithromycin resistance compared with people with no clarithromycin resistance (9/58 [16%] with clarithromycin-resistant strains v 48/60 [80%] with clarithromycin-susceptible strains; significance assessment between groups not reported).

The second additional RCT (228 people with H pylori infection and dyspeptic symptoms) assessed H pylori primary resistance to antibiotics within lansoprazole-based triple regimens. Results for antibiotic resistance were only available for 98 people (43%), randomised because samples were lost in an earthquake. The RCT found that a regimen of lansoprazole plus clarithromycin plus either amoxicillin or metronidazole achieved significantly higher H pylori eradication rates in people with no clarithromycin resistance compared with people with clarithromycin-resistant strains (62/68 [91%] with no clarithromycin resistance v 0/10 [0%] with clarithromycin resistance; P <0.001; per-protocol analysis). The RCT found that metronidazole-containing regimens achieved similar H pylori eradication rates in people with metronidazole-susceptible and metronidazole-resistant strains (metronidazole plus lansoprazole plus amoxicillin: 23/27 [85%] with no metronidazole resistance v 14/17 [82%] with metronidazole resistance; metronidazole plus lansoprazole plus clarithromycin:15/18 [83%] with no metronidazole resistance v 10/16 [63%] with metronidazole resistance; significance assessment not reported).

Substantive changes

H pylori eradication treatments (different triple regimens compared with each other) Four systematic reviews and 12 RCTs added. One systematic review and three RCTs (2 RCTs reported in 1 publication) found that nitroimidazole-based triple regimens and amoxicillin-based triple regimens were equally effective at eradicating H pylori. Two RCTs found no significant difference in H pylori eradication rates between higher- and lower-dose clarithromycin within nitroimidazole-based triple regimens. Three systematic reviews and three subsequent RCTs found no significant difference in H pylori eradication rates between different proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimens. Four RCTs found lower eradication rates in people infected with strains of H pylori resistant to antibiotics included in the eradication regimen compared with people infected with sensitive strains. It is unclear whether any one triple regimen is more effective than another. Categorisation unchanged (Unknown effectiveness).

BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Oct 1;2009:0406.

Duration of H pylori eradication as first-line treatment

Summary

Two-week triple proton pump inhibitor regimens may be more effective than 1-week regimens for eradicating H pylori: .

Benefits and harms

14-day triple regimen versus 7-day triple regimen as first-line treatment:

We found one systematic review (search date 1999; 7 RCTs; 906 people) and three subsequent RCTs.

Eradication rates

Two-week compared with 1-week triple regimen Two-week triple regimens seem more effective at eradicating H pylori (moderate-quality evidence).

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Eradication rates

Systematic review
906 people
7 RCTs in this analysis
Eradication rates
339/470 (72%) with 7-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimens
353/436 (81%) with 14-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimens

RR 0.89
95% CI 0.83 to 0.96
NNT 11
95% CI 7 to 33
Small effect size 14-day treatment

RCT
3-armed trial
909 people with H pylori infection and duodenal ulcer Eradication rates 4 weeks
240/301 (80%) with 7-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimen
246/301 (82%) with 14-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimen

P = 0.53
The RCT adjusted results to allow for multiple comparisons
Not significant

RCT
598 people with H pylori infection and peptic ulcer disease Eradication rates 5 weeks
240/337 (71%) with 7-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimen
197/261 (76%) with 14-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimen

ARR −4%
95% CI −11% to +3%
RCT designed as an equivalence trial; the high predetermined non-inferiority margin of 15% means that the results must be treated with caution
Not significant

RCT
243 people with H pylori infection and dyspepsia having amoxicillin-based triple eradication therapy
Subgroup analysis
Eradication rates
67/117 (57%) with 7-day treatment with amoxicillin-based triple regimen
88/126 (70%) with 14-day treatment with amoxicillin-based triple regimen

P = 0.05
Result is of borderline significance
A multivariate analysis found that the 2-week duration of treatment was the only independent factor associated with a higher rate of H pylori eradication both at ITT and per-protocol analysis
Not significant

RCT
243 people with H pylori infection and dyspepsia having metronidazole-based triple eradication therapy
Subgroup analysis
Eradication rates
63/122 (52%) with 7-day treatment with metronidazole-based triple regimen
68/121 (56%) with 14-day treatment with metronidazole-based triple regimen

Significance not assessed
A multivariate analysis found that the 2-week duration of treatment was the only independent factor associated with a higher rate of H pylori eradication both at ITT and per-protocol analysis

Adverse effects

Ref (type) Population Outcome, Interventions Results and statistical analysis Effect size Favours
Adverse effects

RCT
3-armed trial
909 people with H pylori infection and duodenal ulcer Adverse effects
5.0% with 7-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimen
4.6% with 14-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimen
Absolute numbers not reported

P = 0.80
Not significant

RCT
598 people with H pylori infection and peptic ulcer disease Adverse effects
9.6% with 7-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimen
9.9% with 14-day treatment with proton pump inhibitor-based triple regimen
Absolute numbers not reported

P = 0.88
Not significant

RCT
486 people with H pylori infection and dyspepsia having amoxicillin- or metronidazole-based triple eradication therapy Adverse effects
with 7-day treatment
with 14-day treatment

Significance not assessed

No data from the following reference on this outcome.

Further information on studies

The ITT analysis overall included 75 (15%) people who withdrew from treatment: 23 people (5%) withdrew because of severe adverse effects; 32 (7%) people were lost to follow-up; and 20 (4%) people had poor compliance.

Comment

Clinical guide:

The risk of failure of a 7-day regimen as opposed to a 14-day regimen in any particular individual will relate to the local prevalence of antibiotic resistance, as 14-day regimens may overcome resistance to one of the antibiotics used. As longer regimens have a longer duration of minor adverse effects, the balance between local failure rate and adverse effects must be decided on the basis of locally validated data.

Substantive changes

H pylori eradication treatments (duration of H pylori eradication as first-line treatment) Three RCTs added, which found no significant difference in H pylori eradication rates between 1-week and 2-week triple regimens, although in all three RCTs eradication rates were higher with 2-week regimens. Categorisation unchanged: both Likely to be beneficial, but the 2-week triple regimen is more effective than the 1-week triple regimen.


Articles from BMJ Clinical Evidence are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES