Bordin D S, Embutnieks Y V, Vologzhanina L G, Ilchishina T A, Voynovan I N, Sarsenbaeva A S, Zaitsev O V, Alekseenko S A, Abdulkhakov R A, Dehnich N N, Osipenko M F, Livzan M A, Tsukanov V V, Burkov S G, Bakulina N V, Plotnikova E Y, Tarasova L V, Maev I V, Kucheryavyi Y A, Baryshnikova N V, Butov M A, Kolbasnikov S V, Pakhomova A L, Zhestkova T V, Baranovsky A Y, Abdulhakov S R, Ageeva E A, Lyalyukova E A, Vasyutin A V, Golubev N N, Savilova I V, Morkovkina L V, Kononova A G, Megraud F, O'Morain C, Ramas M, Nyssen O P, McNicholl A G, Gisbert J P
A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Research and Practical Center of the Department of Health of Moscow.
Gastrocenter.
Ter Arkh. 2019 Feb 15;91(2):16-24. doi: 10.26442/00403660.2019.02.000156.
The multicenter prospective observational study initiated by the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) is conducted in 27 countries in Europe. The data from the Russian part of the European registry for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection (European Registry on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection, protocol: "Hp-EuReg") allows us to analyze the real clinical practice of diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori and compare it with international recommendations.
A comparative analysis of the data entered in the register by the Russian research centers "Hp-EuReg", in the period from 2013 to 2018, was conducted.
Invasive diagnostic methods prevail for the primary diagnosis of H. pylori [histology - 20.3% (in 2013 year) - 43.9% (in 2018 year), rapid urease test - 31.7% and 47.8% respectively]. The most popular mode of eradication therapy is a 10-day triple therapy (62.8-76.2%), the effectiveness of which does not exceed 79% (per protocol). Invasive tests (histology) are the leading method for control the effectiveness of therapy, however, there is a tendency towards a wider use of non-invasive methods (H. pylori stool antigen - from 17% in 2013 to 29.3% in 2018 and urea breath test from 6.9 to 18.3%, respectively). Serological test to control the effectiveness of eradication is still used from 8.2% (2013) to 6.1% (2018). Eradication therapy was not performed in 28% of patients throughout the entire observation period.
In Russia, despite approved domestic and international recommendations, deviations in clinical practice persist, both during eradication therapy and in monitoring the effectiveness of eradication therapy.
由欧洲幽门螺杆菌与微生物群研究小组（EHMSG）发起的多中心前瞻性观察研究在欧洲27个国家开展。欧洲幽门螺杆菌感染管理登记处俄罗斯部分的数据（欧洲幽门螺杆菌感染管理登记处，方案：“Hp-EuReg”）使我们能够分析幽门螺杆菌诊断和治疗的实际临床实践，并将其与国际建议进行比较。
对俄罗斯研究中心“Hp-EuReg”在2013年至2018年期间录入登记处的数据进行了比较分析。
侵入性诊断方法在幽门螺杆菌的初诊中占主导地位[组织学检查——2013年为20.3%，2018年为43.9%；快速尿素酶试验分别为31.7%和47.8%]。最常用的根除治疗方式是10天三联疗法（62.8%-76.2%），其有效性不超过79%（按方案）。侵入性检测（组织学检查）是控制治疗有效性的主要方法，然而，有更广泛使用非侵入性方法的趋势（幽门螺杆菌粪便抗原——从2013年的17%升至2018年的29.3%，尿素呼气试验分别从6.9%升至18.3%）。用于控制根除有效性的血清学检测仍从2013年的8.2%降至2018年的6.1%。在整个观察期内，28%的患者未进行根除治疗。
在俄罗斯，尽管有国内和国际批准的建议，但在根除治疗期间以及监测根除治疗有效性方面，临床实践中仍存在偏差。
