Gisbert J P, Gisbert J-L, Marcos S, Jimenez-Alonso I, Moreno-Otero R, Pajares J M
Gastroenterology Unit, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa and Ciberehd, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Feb 15;27(4):346-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03573.x. Epub 2007 Nov 12.
BACKGROUND: Several 'rescue' therapies have been recommended to eradicate Helicobacter pylori, but they still fail in >20% of the cases, and these patients constitute a therapeutic dilemma. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of different 'rescue' therapies empirically prescribed during 10 years to 500 patients in whom at least one eradication regimen had failed to cure H. pylori infection. DESIGN: Prospective single-centre study. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients in whom at least one eradication regimen had failed. INTERVENTION: Rescue regimens included: (i) quadruple therapy with omeprazole-bismuth-tetracycline-metronidazole; (ii) ranitidine bismuth citrate-tetracycline-metronidazole; (iii) omeprazole-amoxicillin-levofloxacin; and (iv) omeprazole-amoxicillin-rifabutin. Antibiotic susceptibility was unknown (rescue regimens were chosen empirically). OUTCOME: Eradication was defined as a negative (13)C-urea breath test 4-8 weeks after completing therapy. RESULTS: Five hundred patients were included (76% functional dyspepsia, 24% peptic ulcer). Compliance rates with first-, second- and third-line regimens were 92%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. Adverse effects were reported by 30%, 37%, and 55% of the patients receiving second-, third-, and fourth-line regimens. Overall, H. pylori cure rates with the second-, third-, and fourth-line rescue regimens were 70%, 74%, and 76%, respectively. Cumulative H. pylori eradication rate with four successive treatments was 99.5%. CONCLUSION: It is possible to construct an overall treatment strategy to maximize H. pylori eradication, on the basis of administration of four consecutive empirical regimens; thus, performing bacterial culture even after a second or third eradication failure may not be necessary.
背景:已有多种“补救”疗法被推荐用于根除幽门螺杆菌,但仍有超过20%的病例治疗失败,这些患者构成了治疗难题。 目的:评估10年间经验性应用于500例至少一种根除方案未能治愈幽门螺杆菌感染患者的不同“补救”疗法的疗效。 设计:前瞻性单中心研究。 患者:至少一种根除方案失败的连续患者。 干预:补救方案包括:(i)奥美拉唑-铋剂-四环素-甲硝唑四联疗法;(ii)枸橼酸铋雷尼替丁-四环素-甲硝唑;(iii)奥美拉唑-阿莫西林-左氧氟沙星;(iv)奥美拉唑-阿莫西林-利福布汀。抗生素敏感性未知(补救方案为经验性选择)。 结局:根除定义为治疗完成后4 - 8周(13)C -尿素呼气试验阴性。 结果:纳入500例患者(76%为功能性消化不良,24%为消化性溃疡)。一线、二线和三线方案的依从率分别为92%、92%和95%。接受二线、三线和四线方案的患者分别有30%、37%和55%报告有不良反应。总体而言,二线、三线和四线补救方案的幽门螺杆菌治愈率分别为70%、74%和76%。连续四次治疗的累积幽门螺杆菌根除率为99.5%。 结论:基于连续应用四种经验性方案,可以构建一种总体治疗策略以最大限度地提高幽门螺杆菌根除率;因此,即使在第二次或第三次根除失败后进行细菌培养可能也没有必要。
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008-2-15
Am J Gastroenterol. 2006-2
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005-4
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012-2-28
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005-11-15
Am J Gastroenterol. 1997-12
World J Gastroenterol. 2023-1-14
Front Microbiol. 2022-6-14
Pathogens. 2020-12-28
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2020-11-12
United European Gastroenterol J. 2015-11-13