Buzás György M, Györffy Hajnalka, Széles Ilona, Szentmihályi Anna
Department of Gastroenterology, Ferencváros Health Center, Budapest, Hungary.
2nd Institute of Pathology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2004 Jan;65(1):13-25. doi: 10.1016/S0011-393X(04)90001-X.
Following standard first-line triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection, up to 20% of patients require further eradication.
The aim of this study was to assess the effects of second-line triple therapies and third-line quadruple therapies for the eradication of H pylori.
This 7-week, prospective, crossover, controlled, second- and third-line trial was conducted at the Department of Gastroenterology, Ferencváros Health Center (Budapest, Hungary). Patients aged 18 to 80 years with duodenal ulcers and an H pylori infection resistant to first-line triple therapy (pantoprazole 40 mg BID + amoxicillin 1000 mg BID + clarithromycin 500 mg BID [PAC] given as tablets) received a different triple therapy regimen (ranitidine bismuth citrate 400 mg BID + metronidazole 500 mg BID + clarithromycin 500 mg BID [RBC-MC]) for 7 days (group 1A), and nonresponders after RBC + 2 antimicrobials received the pantoprazole-based regimen (group 1B). After secondary failure, patients were randomized to receive quadruple therapies: pantoprazole, amoxicillin, tetracycline, and either nitrofurantoin or bismuth subsalicylate (groups 2A and 2B).
One hundred thirty-four patients were enrolled in the second-line study (56 men, 78 women; mean [SD] age, 51.1 [12.4] years; group 1A, 68 patients; group 1B, 66 patients). Subsequently, 41 (30.6%) of these patients were randomized to receive quadruple therapies. Using intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the eradication rates did not differ significantly (60.3% and 65.2% in groups 1A and 1B, respectively; 61.9% and 55.0% in groups 2A and 2B, respectively). Perprotocol eradication rates did not differ significantly (66.1% and 68.3% in groups 1A and 1B, respectively); however, the rates were significantly different in group 2A (66.7%) versus group 2B (55.5%) (P = 0.03).
在采用标准的一线三联疗法治疗幽门螺杆菌感染后,高达20%的患者需要进一步根除治疗。
本研究旨在评估二线三联疗法和三线四联疗法根除幽门螺杆菌的效果。
这项为期7周的前瞻性、交叉、对照二线和三线试验在费伦茨瓦罗斯健康中心(匈牙利布达佩斯)胃肠病科进行。年龄在18至80岁、患有十二指肠溃疡且对一线三联疗法(泮托拉唑40毫克,每日两次 + 阿莫西林1000毫克,每日两次 + 克拉霉素500毫克,每日两次 [PAC],以片剂形式给药)耐药的幽门螺杆菌感染患者接受不同的三联疗法方案(枸橼酸铋雷尼替丁400毫克,每日两次 + 甲硝唑500毫克,每日两次 + 克拉霉素500毫克,每日两次 [RBC-MC]),疗程为7天(1A组),RBC + 2种抗菌药物治疗无效的患者接受基于泮托拉唑的方案(1B组)。二线治疗失败后,患者被随机分配接受四联疗法:泮托拉唑、阿莫西林、四环素以及呋喃妥因或次水杨酸铋(2A组和2B组)。
134例患者纳入二线研究(56例男性,78例女性;平均[标准差]年龄,51.1[12.4]岁;1A组68例患者;1B组66例患者)。随后,这些患者中有41例(30.6%)被随机分配接受四联疗法。采用意向性分析(ITT),根除率无显著差异(1A组和1B组分别为60.3%和65.2%;2A组和2B组分别为61.9%和55.0%)。符合方案分析的根除率无显著差异(1A组和1B组分别为66.1%和68.3%);然而,2A组(66.7%)与2B组(55.5%)相比,根除率有显著差异(P = 0.03)。