-
Gastroenterology Nov 2018In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated clarithromycin-resistant Helicobacter pylori a high priority for antibiotic research and development. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated clarithromycin-resistant Helicobacter pylori a high priority for antibiotic research and development. However, there are no clear data on the global distribution of resistance or its clinical effects. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the distribution of H pylori resistance to commonly used antibiotics and to measure the association between antibiotic resistance and treatment failure.
METHODS
We searched publication databases for studies that assessed rates of H pylori resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, levofloxacin, amoxicillin, or tetracycline. Pooled estimates of primary and secondary resistance and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were grouped by WHO region. The association between antibiotic resistance and treatment failure was measured by extracting data on treatment efficacy in patients with resistant and susceptible isolates and pooling odds ratios with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
We identified 178 studies, comprising 66,142 isolates from 65 countries. Primary and secondary resistance rates to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin were ≥15% in all WHO regions, except primary clarithromycin resistance in the Americas (10%; 95% CI, 4%-16%) and South-East Asia region (10%; 95% CI, 5%-16%) and primary levofloxacin resistance in the European region (11%; 95% CI, 9%-13%). There was considerable heterogeneity (I > 75%) among all analyses-this might have resulted from the grouping of resistance rates by country. Increasing antibiotic resistance was observed in most WHO regions. Resistance to clarithromycin was significantly associated with failure of clarithromycin-containing regimens (odds ratio, 6.97; 95% CI, 5.23-9.28; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Resistance of H pylori to antibiotics has reached alarming levels worldwide, which has a great effect on efficacy of treatment. Local surveillance networks are required to select appropriate eradication regimens for each region.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Middle Aged; Prevalence; World Health Organization; Young Adult
PubMed: 29990487
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.007 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2021This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with high-dose sulbactam or colistin with additional antibacterial agents for treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy and safety of combination therapy with high-dose sulbactam or colistin with additional antibacterial agents for multiple drug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with high-dose sulbactam or colistin with additional antibacterial agents for treating multidrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (MDR-AB or XDR-AB) infections.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science (through March 30, 2020) for studies that examined high-dose sulbactam or colistin with additional antibacterial agents as therapy for patients with infections with MDR-AB and XDR-AB. Through a network meta-analysis (NMA), using both direct and indirect evidence, we determined risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Primary outcomes included clinical improvement, clinical cure, microbiological eradication, and mortality from any cause. Secondary outcomes included nephrotoxicity.
RESULTS
The NMA included 18 studies and 1835 patients. We found that high-dose sulbactam (≥6 g per day), combined with another single antibacterial agent (levofloxacin or tigecycline), which were the highest ranking in clinical improvement and clinical cure. Still colistin-based combination in drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii therapy occupied the main position (the number of studies and patients) in most studies. Colistin combined with additional antibacterial agents was associated with a higher risk of nephrotoxicity.
CONCLUSIONS
Therapeutic regimens including high-dose sulbactam in combination with additional antibacterial agents (including colistin) might be one of the promising options for the treatment of MDR-AB or XDR-AB infections and high-quality study will be needed to confirm clinical efficacy.
Topics: Acinetobacter Infections; Acinetobacter baumannii; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Colistin; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Minocycline; Network Meta-Analysis; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Sulbactam
PubMed: 32889142
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2020.08.021 -
The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine Apr 2020Treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis requires long-term therapy with a combination of multiple second-line drugs. These drugs are associated with numerous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis requires long-term therapy with a combination of multiple second-line drugs. These drugs are associated with numerous adverse events that can cause severe morbidity, such as deafness, and in some instances can lead to death. Our aim was to estimate the absolute and relative frequency of adverse events associated with different tuberculosis drugs to provide useful information for clinicians and tuberculosis programmes in selecting optimal treatment regimens.
METHODS
We did a meta-analysis using individual-level patient data that were obtained from studies that reported adverse events that resulted in permanent discontinuation of anti-tuberculosis medications. We used a database created for our previous meta-analysis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment and outcomes, for which we did a systematic review of literature published between Jan 1, 2009, and Aug 31, 2015 (updated April 15, 2016), and requested individual patient-level information from authors. We also considered for this analysis studies contributing patient-level data in response to a public call made by WHO in 2018. Meta-analysis for proportions and arm-based network meta-analysis were done to estimate the incidence of adverse events for each tuberculosis drug.
FINDINGS
58 studies were identified, including 50 studies from the updated individual patient data meta-analysis for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. 35 of these studies, with 9178 patients, were included in our analysis. Using meta-analysis of proportions, drugs with low risks of adverse event occurrence leading to permanent discontinuation included levofloxacin (1·3% [95% CI 0·3-5·0]), moxifloxacin (2·9% [1·6-5·0]), bedaquiline (1·7% [0·7-4·2]), and clofazimine (1·6% [0·5-5·3]). Relatively high incidence of adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation was seen with three second-line injectable drugs (amikacin: 10·2% [6·3-16·0]; kanamycin: 7·5% [4·6-11·9]; capreomycin: 8·2% [6·3-10·7]), aminosalicylic acid (11·6% [7·1-18·3]), and linezolid (14·1% [9·9-19·6]). Risk of bias in selection of studies was judged to be low because there were no important differences between included and excluded studies. Variability between studies was significant for most outcomes analysed.
INTERPRETATION
Fluoroquinolones, clofazimine, and bedaquiline had the lowest incidence of adverse events leading to permanent drug discontinuation, whereas second-line injectable drugs, aminosalicylic acid, and linezolid had the highest incidence. These results suggest that close monitoring of adverse events is important for patients being treated for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Our results also underscore the urgent need for safer and better-tolerated drugs to reduce morbidity from treatment itself for patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
FUNDING
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA), American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, and Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Topics: Adult; Aminosalicylic Acid; Antitubercular Agents; Canada; Clofazimine; Diarylquinolines; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Incidence; Linezolid; Male; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 32192585
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30047-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Female; Fosfomycin; Humans; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Male; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32407558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jun 2020Bacteremia and other invasive bacterial infections are common among children with cancer receiving intensive chemotherapy and in pediatric recipients of hematopoietic...
BACKGROUND
Bacteremia and other invasive bacterial infections are common among children with cancer receiving intensive chemotherapy and in pediatric recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Systemic antibacterial prophylaxis is one approach that can be used to reduce the risk of these infections. Our purpose was to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing HSCT.
METHODS
An international and multidisciplinary panel was convened with representation from pediatric hematology/oncology and HSCT, pediatric infectious diseases (including antibiotic stewardship), nursing, pharmacy, a patient advocate, and a CPG methodologist. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to generate recommendations based on the results of a systematic review of the literature.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 114 eligible randomized trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. The panel made a weak recommendation for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis for children receiving intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia and relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Weak recommendations against the routine use of systemic antibacterial prophylaxis were made for children undergoing induction chemotherapy for ALL, autologous HSCT and allogeneic HSCT. A strong recommendation against its routine use was made for children whose therapy is not expected to result in prolonged severe neutropenia. If used, prophylaxis with levofloxacin was recommended during severe neutropenia.
CONCLUSIONS
We present a CPG for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric cancer and HSCT patients. Future research should evaluate the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of prophylaxis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacteremia; Child; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Levofloxacin; Neoplasms
PubMed: 31676904
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz1082 -
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and... Jan 2023Maternal rectovaginal colonization with group B Streptococcus (GBS) or Streptococcus agalactiae is the most common pathway for this disease during the perinatal period.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Maternal rectovaginal colonization with group B Streptococcus (GBS) or Streptococcus agalactiae is the most common pathway for this disease during the perinatal period. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize existing data regarding maternal colonization, serotype profiles, and antibiotic resistance in China.
METHODS
Systematic literature reviews were conducted after searching 6 databases. Meta-analysis was applied to analyze colonization rate, serotype, and antimicrobial susceptibility of GBS clinical isolates in different regions of China. Summary estimates are presented using tables, funnel plots, forest plots, histograms, violin plots, and line plots.
RESULTS
The dataset regarding colonization included 52 articles and 195 303 pregnant women. Our estimate for maternal GBS colonization in China was 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.2%-8.9%). Serotypes Ia, Ib, III, and V account for 95.9% of identified isolates. Serotype III, which is frequently associated with the hypervirulent clonal complex, accounts for 46.4%. Among the maternal GBS isolates using multilocus sequence typing (MLST), ST19 (25.7%, 289/1126) and ST10 (25.1%, 283/1126) were most common, followed by ST12 (12.4%, 140/1126), ST17 (4.8%, 54/1126), and ST651 (3.7%, 42/1126). GBS was highly resistant to tetracycline (75.1% [95% CI 74.0-76.3%]) and erythromycin (65.4% [95% CI 64.5-66.3%]) and generally susceptible to penicillin, ampicillin, vancomycin, ceftriaxone, and linezolid. Resistance rates of GBS to clindamycin and levofloxacin varied greatly (1.0-99.2% and 10.3-72.9%, respectively). A summary analysis of the bacterial drug resistance reports released by the China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) in the past 5 years showed that the drug resistance rate of GBS to erythromycin, clindamycin, and levofloxacin decreased slowly from 2018 to 2020. However, the resistance rates of GBS to all 3 antibiotics increased slightly in 2021.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall colonization rate in China was much lower than the global colonization rate (17.4%). Consistent with many original and review reports in other parts of the world, GBS was highly resistant to tetracycline. However, the resistance of GBS isolates in China to erythromycin and clindamycin was greater than in other countries. This paper provides important epidemiological information, to assist with prevention and treatment of GBS colonization in these women.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Clindamycin; Streptococcal Infections; Levofloxacin; Streptococcus agalactiae; Multilocus Sequence Typing; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Erythromycin; Tetracycline; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; China; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 36639677
DOI: 10.1186/s12941-023-00553-7 -
Cureus Apr 2023Community-acquired pneumonia is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world, which incurs significant healthcare costs. The aim of his meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
Community-acquired pneumonia is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world, which incurs significant healthcare costs. The aim of his meta-analysis is to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of a novel non-fluorinated quinolone, nemonoxacin, compared with levofloxacin in treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). A recursive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus up to August 2022. All randomized clinical trials comparing nemonoxacin to levofloxacin for community-acquired pneumonia were included. The patients selected for this study had mild to moderate CAP. Each individual received treatment with either nemonoxacin (500 mg or 750 mg) or levofloxacin (500 mg) for a duration of 3-10 days. Four randomized control trials with a total of 1955 patients were included. Nemonoxacin and levofloxacin were found to have similar clinical cure rates in the treatment of CAP. There were no significant differences reported in the treatment-emergent adverse events between the two drugs (RR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.08, I=0%). However, the most frequent symptoms exhibited were gastrointestinal system-related. Both the dosages (500 mg and 750 mg) of nemonoxacin were found to have similar efficacy as that of levofloxacin. Our meta-analysis indicates that nemonoxacin is a well-tolerated and effective antibiotic therapy for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), with clinical success rates comparable to those of levofloxacin. Furthermore, the adverse effects associated with nemonoxacin are generally mild. Therefore, both the 500 mg and 750 mg dosages of nemonoxacin can be recommended as appropriate antibiotic therapy regimens for the treatment of CAP.
PubMed: 37200652
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.37650 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jan 2023Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and...
BACKGROUND
Due to increasing resistance rates of () to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory infection.
AIM
To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory infection.
METHODS
A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of infection rescue therapies were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis.
CONCLUSION
We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.
Topics: Humans; Helicobacter Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Metronidazole; Helicobacter pylori; Bismuth; Levofloxacin; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Macrolides; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Tetracycline; Rifabutin
PubMed: 36687120
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i2.390 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2024Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma spp. especially M. hominis, U. parvum, and U. urealyticum recognized as an important cause of urogenital infections. Sake of the presence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma spp. especially M. hominis, U. parvum, and U. urealyticum recognized as an important cause of urogenital infections. Sake of the presence of antibiotic resistance and a continuous rise in resistance, the treatment options are limited, and treatment has become more challenging and costlier.
OBJECTIVES
Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to estimate worldwide resistance rates of genital Mycoplasmas and Ureaplasma to fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin) agents.
METHODS
We searched the relevant published studies in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase from until 3, March 2022. All statistical analyses were carried out using the statistical package R.
RESULTS
The 30 studies included in the analysis were performed in 16 countries. In the metadata, the proportions of ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin resistance in Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma urogenital isolates were reported 59.8% (95% CI 49.6, 69.1), 31.2% (95% CI 23, 40), 7.3% (95% CI 1, 31), and 5.3% (95% CI 1, 2), respectively. According to the meta-regression, the ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin rate increased over time. There was a statistically significant difference in the fluoroquinolones resistance rates between different continents/countries (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results obtained in this systematic review and meta-analysis we recommend the use of the newer group of fluoroquinolones especially levofloxacin as the first choice for the treatment of genital mycoplasmosis, as well as ofloxacin for the treatment of genital infections caused by U. parvum.
Topics: Humans; Ureaplasma; Mycoplasma; Fluoroquinolones; Levofloxacin; Ureaplasma urealyticum; Moxifloxacin; Mycoplasma hominis; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Ureaplasma Infections; Urinary Tract Infections; Ciprofloxacin
PubMed: 38016593
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2023.11.007 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 2015To determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and newer treatment regimens.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase without language or date restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
Full text reports of randomised controlled trials that compared different eradication treatments for H pylori among adults.
RESULTS
Of the 15,565 studies identified, 143 were eligible and included. Data on 14 kinds of treatments were available. Of 91 possible comparisons for the efficacy outcome, 34 were compared directly and the following treatments performed better: seven days of concomitant treatment (proton pump inhibitor and three kinds of antibiotics administered together), 10 or 14 days of concomitant treatment, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment (standard triple treatment which is probiotic supplemented), 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment (proton pump inhibitor, levofloxacin, and antibiotic administered together), 14 days of hybrid treatment (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin used for seven days, followed by a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and 5-nitroimidazole for another seven days), and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment (five or seven days of a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin, followed by five or seven additional days of a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and 5-nitroimidazole or amoxicillin). In terms of tolerance, all treatments were considered tolerable, but seven days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment and seven days of levofloxacin based triple treatment ranked best in terms of the proportion of adverse events reported.
CONCLUSION
Comparison of different eradication treatments for H pylori showed that concomitant treatments, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment, 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment, 14 days of hybrid treatment, and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment might be better alternatives for the eradication of H pylori.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clarithromycin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Levofloxacin; Metronidazole; Nitroimidazoles; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 26290044
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h4052