Novel Information Regarding the Treatment of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE

infects at least 50% of the world's human population. The current study aimed to assess and compare the efficacy of triple versus quadruple therapy.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) consisting of triple and quadruple therapy were identified through electronic and manual searches in the national and international online databases (IsI, Magiran, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus). The random-effects model was applied to pool analysis. Funnel plots and the Egger test were used to examine publication bias.

RESULTS

After a detailed review of the selected articles, 80 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis; it was based on using triple and quadruple therapy as the first and second-line treatment. The results showed that quadruple therapy in the first-line treatment had a higher eradication rate than triple therapy. Overall, the eradication rate with triple therapy was 74% (95% CI, 71%-77%) for intention-totreat (ITT) analysis and 80% (95% CI, 77%-82%) for per-protocol (PP) analysis. Generally, the eradication rate with quadruple therapy was 82% (95% CI, 78.0%-86.0%) for ITT analysis and 85% (95% CI, 82.0%-89.0%) for PP analysis. The analysis also revealed that quadruple therapy was more effective for 7 or 10 days.

CONCLUSION

The current study results demonstrated that quadruple therapy has better effectiveness than triple therapy as the first-line treatment; however, in the second-line treatment, the effectiveness of quadruple and triple regimens is almost similar. The effectiveness of quadruple therapy in the Asian population was found to be slightly higher than that of triple therapy, while this difference was considerably higher in the European population.