Cargando…

Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Treating Helicobacter pylori infection according to antibiotic resistance has been frequently recommended. However, information on its real effectiveness is scarce. AIM: The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis comparing empirical vs. susceptibility-guided treatment of H. pylo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nyssen, Olga P., Espada, Marta, Gisbert, Javier P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9237546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35774456
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.913436
_version_ 1784736820567736320
author Nyssen, Olga P.
Espada, Marta
Gisbert, Javier P.
author_facet Nyssen, Olga P.
Espada, Marta
Gisbert, Javier P.
author_sort Nyssen, Olga P.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Treating Helicobacter pylori infection according to antibiotic resistance has been frequently recommended. However, information on its real effectiveness is scarce. AIM: The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis comparing empirical vs. susceptibility-guided treatment of H. pylori. METHODS: Selection of studies: Studies comparing empirical versus susceptibility-guided treatment were selected. Search strategy: electronic and manual up to August 2021. Data synthesis: by intention-to-treat (random-effects model). RESULTS: Overall, 54 studies were included (6,705 patients in the susceptibility-guided group and 7,895 in the empirical group). H. pylori eradication rate was 86 vs. 76%, respectively (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.08–1.17; I(2): 83%). Similar results were found when only RCTs were evaluated (24 studies; RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.11–1.22; I(2): 71%) and when susceptibility testing was assessed by culture (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.06–1.18) or PCR (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05–1.23). For first-line treatments (naïve patients; 30 studies), better efficacy results were obtained with the susceptibility-guided strategy (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.11–1.20; I(2): 79%). However, for empirical first-line quadruple regimens, in particular (both with and without bismuth, excluding the suboptimal triple therapies), not based on CYP2C19 gene polymorphism, no differences in efficacy were found compared with the susceptibility-guided group (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99–1.09); this lack of difference was confirmed in RCTs (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.99–1.12). For rescue therapies (13 studies, most 2(nd)-line), similar results were demonstrated for both strategies, including all studies (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.97–1.22; I(2): 82%) and when only RCTs were considered (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.97–1.36). CONCLUSION: The benefit of susceptibility-guided treatment over empirical treatment of H. pylori infection could not be demonstrated, either in first-line (if the most updated quadruple regimens are prescribed) or in rescue therapies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9237546
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92375462022-06-29 Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Nyssen, Olga P. Espada, Marta Gisbert, Javier P. Front Microbiol Microbiology BACKGROUND: Treating Helicobacter pylori infection according to antibiotic resistance has been frequently recommended. However, information on its real effectiveness is scarce. AIM: The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis comparing empirical vs. susceptibility-guided treatment of H. pylori. METHODS: Selection of studies: Studies comparing empirical versus susceptibility-guided treatment were selected. Search strategy: electronic and manual up to August 2021. Data synthesis: by intention-to-treat (random-effects model). RESULTS: Overall, 54 studies were included (6,705 patients in the susceptibility-guided group and 7,895 in the empirical group). H. pylori eradication rate was 86 vs. 76%, respectively (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.08–1.17; I(2): 83%). Similar results were found when only RCTs were evaluated (24 studies; RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.11–1.22; I(2): 71%) and when susceptibility testing was assessed by culture (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.06–1.18) or PCR (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05–1.23). For first-line treatments (naïve patients; 30 studies), better efficacy results were obtained with the susceptibility-guided strategy (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.11–1.20; I(2): 79%). However, for empirical first-line quadruple regimens, in particular (both with and without bismuth, excluding the suboptimal triple therapies), not based on CYP2C19 gene polymorphism, no differences in efficacy were found compared with the susceptibility-guided group (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99–1.09); this lack of difference was confirmed in RCTs (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.99–1.12). For rescue therapies (13 studies, most 2(nd)-line), similar results were demonstrated for both strategies, including all studies (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.97–1.22; I(2): 82%) and when only RCTs were considered (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.97–1.36). CONCLUSION: The benefit of susceptibility-guided treatment over empirical treatment of H. pylori infection could not be demonstrated, either in first-line (if the most updated quadruple regimens are prescribed) or in rescue therapies. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9237546/ /pubmed/35774456 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.913436 Text en Copyright © 2022 Nyssen, Espada and Gisbert. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Microbiology
Nyssen, Olga P.
Espada, Marta
Gisbert, Javier P.
Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Empirical vs. Susceptibility-Guided Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort empirical vs. susceptibility-guided treatment of helicobacter pylori infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9237546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35774456
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.913436
work_keys_str_mv AT nyssenolgap empiricalvssusceptibilityguidedtreatmentofhelicobacterpyloriinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT espadamarta empiricalvssusceptibilityguidedtreatmentofhelicobacterpyloriinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gisbertjavierp empiricalvssusceptibilityguidedtreatmentofhelicobacterpyloriinfectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis