Haider Rana B, Brennan Denise E, Omorogbe Joseph, Holleran Grainne, Hall Barry, O'Morain Colm, Breslin Niall, O'Connor Humphrey J, Smith Sinead M, McNamara Deirdre
aDepartment of Clinical Medicine bSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin cDepartment of Gastroenterology, Adelaide and Meath Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Nov;27(11):1265-9. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000457.
Eradication rates for the standard first-line triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection have decreased in recent years. Sequential therapy has been suggested as an alternative. The efficacy of sequential therapy has not been assessed to date in an Irish population.
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of standard triple therapy with sequential therapy for H. pylori eradication.
A prospective randomized-controlled study was carried out. Treatment-naive H. pylori-infected patients were randomized to receive either standard triple therapy or sequential therapy.
In all, 87 eligible patients were recruited into the study, one of whom dropped out. Fifty-one per cent (N=44) patients received standard triple therapy and 49% (N=42) patients received sequential therapy. The eradication efficacy by intention-to-treat analysis was 56.8% [N=25/44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.2-71.4%] for standard triple therapy and 69% (N=29/42; 95% CI 55.0-83.0%) for sequential therapy. The eradication rates by per-protocol analysis for standard triple therapy and sequential therapy were 61% (N=25/41; 95% CI 46.1-76.0%) and 69% (N=29/42; 95% CI 55.0-83.0%), respectively. The differences in eradication rates for each treatment by either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analysis were not statistically significant (P=0.24 and 0.44, respectively). In addition, incidence in adverse events was not significantly different between the study groups. The most common adverse event reported was mild nausea at 15% (95% CI 7.5-22.6%).
Sequential therapy had a nonstatistically significant advantage over standard triple therapy in our patient cohort. However, eradication rates for both standard triple therapy and sequential therapy were suboptimal. Further studies are required to identify potential alternatives to standard first-line triple therapy.
近年来,幽门螺杆菌感染的标准一线三联疗法的根除率有所下降。序贯疗法被提议作为一种替代方案。迄今为止,爱尔兰人群中尚未评估序贯疗法的疗效。
本研究旨在比较标准三联疗法与序贯疗法对幽门螺杆菌的根除疗效。
开展了一项前瞻性随机对照研究。未接受过治疗的幽门螺杆菌感染患者被随机分配接受标准三联疗法或序贯疗法。
总共87名符合条件的患者被纳入研究,其中1人退出。51%(N = 44)的患者接受标准三联疗法,49%(N = 42)的患者接受序贯疗法。意向性分析显示,标准三联疗法的根除疗效为56.8%[N = 25/44;95%置信区间(CI)42.2 - 71.4%],序贯疗法为69%(N = 29/42;95% CI 55.0 - 83.0%)。符合方案分析中,标准三联疗法和序贯疗法的根除率分别为61%(N = 25/41;95% CI 46.1 - 76.0%)和69%(N = 29/42;95% CI 55.0 - 83.0%)。意向性分析或符合方案分析中,两种治疗方法的根除率差异均无统计学意义(P分别为0.24和0.44)。此外,研究组之间不良事件的发生率无显著差异。报告的最常见不良事件是轻度恶心,发生率为15%(95% CI 7.5 - 22.6%)。
在我们的患者队列中,序贯疗法相对于标准三联疗法具有非统计学意义的优势。然而,标准三联疗法和序贯疗法的根除率均未达到最佳效果。需要进一步研究以确定标准一线三联疗法的潜在替代方案。