Short-term triple therapy with azithromycin for Helicobacter pylori eradication: Low cost, high compliance, but low efficacy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Brazilian consensus recommends a short-term treatment course with clarithromycin, amoxicillin and proton-pump inhibitor for the eradication of <it>Helicobacter pylori </it>(<it>H. pylori)</it>. This treatment course has good efficacy, but cannot be afforded by a large part of the population. Azithromycin, amoxicillin and omeprazole are subsidized, for several aims, by the Brazilian federal government. Therefore, a short-term treatment course that uses these drugs is a low-cost one, but its efficacy regarding the bacterium eradication is yet to be demonstrated. The study's purpose was to verify the efficacy of <it>H. pylori </it>eradication in infected patients who presented peptic ulcer disease, using the association of azithromycin, amoxicillin and omeprazole.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Sixty patients with peptic ulcer diagnosed by upper digestive endoscopy and <it>H. pylori </it>infection documented by rapid urease test, histological analysis and urea breath test were treated for six days with a combination of azithromycin 500 mg and omeprazole 20 mg, in a single daily dose, associated with amoxicillin 500 mg 3 times a day. The eradication control was carried out 12 weeks after the treatment by means of the same diagnostic tests. The eradication rates were calculated with 95% confidence interval.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The eradication rate was 38% per intention to treat and 41% per protocol. Few adverse effects were observed and treatment compliance was high.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite its low cost and high compliance, the low eradication rate does not allow the recommendation of the triple therapy with azithromycin as an adequate treatment for <it>H. pylori </it>infection.</p

Characteristics of NRS-2002 nutritional risk screening in patients hospitalized for secondary cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation.

Objective: The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of nutritional risk in patients scheduled for cardiovascular rehabilitation. Background: Knowledge concerning nutritional aspects of cardiovascular diseases is contemporary limited. Methods: Nutritional risk screening using a standardized Nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) questionnaire was performed on a cohort of consecutive patients scheduled for rehabilitation 1-6 months after treatment for ischemic, valvular, or combined causes of heart diseases. Baseline weight was available for more than 80% of patients. Results: The study population consisted of 317 patients, aged 23-85 years, with a mean age of 62.5 ± 11.3 years. Male to female share was 253 (79.8%) and 64 (20.2%), respectively. Twenty-eight (8.8%) were treated for myocardial infarction conservatively, 151 (47.6%) by percutaneous coronary interventions, and 145 (45.7%) by surgery. NRS-2002 was 3.56 ± 1.54 in range 0-6. A high correlation was found between the NRS-2002 and percentage weight loss history (rho = 0.813; p &lt;0.001). Significant differences according to increased nutritional risk (NRS-2002 ≥ 3) were found within age groups (p &lt; 0.001), disease etiology (p = 0.002), cardiovascular treatments (p &lt; 0.001), and grades of renal function (p &lt; 0.001). Odds for developing increased nutritional risk (NRS-2002 ≥ 3) were significant for cardiovascular treatments (odds ratio [OR] = 4.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.28-8.30, p &lt; 0.001), age (OR = 3.19, 95% CI, 2.00-5.09, p &lt; 0.001), grade of renal function (OR = 1.91, 95% CI, 1.17-3.09, p = 0.009), diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.37, 95% CI, 1.09-5.16, p = 0.029), and any psychological disturbance (OR = 2.04, 95% CI, 1.06-3.90, p = 0.032). Conclusions: Pronounced nutritional risk frequently existed among patients at stationary cardiovascular rehabilitation. Nutritional risk was connected with preceding cardiovascular treatments, patient age, and renal function. Further studies concerning nutritional risk and its connections with clinical outcomes might serve as a resourceful perspective to improve outcomes or quality of care for the entities from the cardiovascular diseases continuum

The status of antimicrobial resistance of Helicobacter pylori in eastern Europe

WOS: 000176905900002PubMed ID: 12199848Objective To evaluate the primary, secondary and combined resistance to five antimicrobial agents of 2340 Helicobacter pylori isolates from 19 centers in 10 countries in eastern Europe. Methods Data were available for centers in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovenia and Turkey. Susceptibility was tested by agar dilution (seven countries), E test (five countries) and disk diffusion (three countries) methods. Resistance breakpoints (mg/L) were: metronidazole 8, clarithromycin 1, amoxicillin 0.5, tetracycline 4, and ciprofloxacin 1 or 4 in most centers. Primary and post-treatment resistance was assessed in 2003 and 337 isolates respectively. Results for 282 children and 201 adults were compared. Results Primary resistance rates since 1998 were: metronidazole 37.9%, clarithromycin 9.5%, amoxicillin 0.9%, tetracycline 1.9%, ciprofloxacin 3.9%, and both metronidazole and clarithromycin 6.1%. Isolates from centers in Slovenia and Lithuania exhibited low resistance rates. Since 1998, amoxicillin resistance has been detected in the southeastern region. From 1996, metronidazole resistance increased significantly from 30.5% to 36.4%, while clarithromycin resistance increased slightly from 8.9% to 10.6%. In centers in Greece, Poland, and Bulgaria, the mean metronidazole resistance was slightly higher in adults than in children (39% versus 31.2%, P > 0.05); this trend was not found for clarithromycin or amoxicillin (P > 0.20). Post-treatment resistance rates exhibited wide variations. Conclusions In eastern Europe, primary H. pylori resistance to metronidazole is considerable, and that to clarithromycin is similar to or slightly higher than that in western Europe. Resistance to amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin and tetracycline was detected in several centers. Primary and post-treatment resistance rates vary greatly between centers

The status of antimicrobial resistance of Helicobacter pylori in eastern Europe

Objective To evaluate the primary, secondary and combined resistance to five antimicrobial agents of 2340 Helicobacter pylori isolates from 19 centers in 10 countries in eastern Europe. Methods Data were available for centers in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovenia and Turkey. Susceptibility was tested by agar dilution (seven countries), E test (five countries) and disk diffusion (three countries) methods. Resistance breakpoints (mg/L) were: metronidazole 8, clarithromycin 1, amoxicillin 0.5, tetracycline 4, and ciprofloxacin 1 or 4 in most centers. Primary and post-treatment resistance was assessed in 2003 and 337 isolates respectively. Results for 282 children and 201 adults were compared. Results Primary resistance rates since 1998 were: metronidazole 37.9%, clarithromycin 9.5%, amoxicillin 0.9%, tetracycline 1.9%, ciprofloxacin 3.9%, and both metronidazole and clarithromycin 6.1%. Isolates from centers in Slovenia and Lithuania exhibited low resistance rates. Since 1998, amoxicillin resistance has been detected in the southeastern region. From 1996, metronidazole resistance increased significantly from 30.5% to 36.4%, while clarithromycin resistance increased slightly from 8.9% to 10.6%. In centers in Greece, Poland, and Bulgaria, the mean metronidazole resistance was slightly higher in adults than in children (39% versus 31.2%, P &gt; 0.05); this trend was not found for clarithromycin or amoxicillin (P &gt; 0.20). Post-treatment resistance rates exhibited wide variations. Conclusions In eastern Europe, primary H. pylori resistance to metronidazole is considerable, and that to clarithromycin is similar to or slightly higher than that in western Europe. Resistance to amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin and tetracycline was detected in several centers. Primary and post-treatment resistance rates vary greatly between centers