European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management (Hp-EuReg): Patterns and trends in first-line empirical eradication prescription and outcomes of 5 years and 21 533 patients

Objective The best approach for Helicobacter pylori management remains unclear. An audit process is essential to ensure clinical practice is aligned with best standards of care. Design International multicentre prospective non-interventional registry starting in 2013 aimed to evaluate the decisions and outcomes in H. pylori management by European gastroenterologists. Patients were registered in an e-CRF by AEG-REDCap. Variables included demographics, previous eradication attempts, prescribed treatment, adverse events and outcomes. Data monitoring was performed to ensure data quality. Time-trend and geographical analyses were performed. Results 30 394 patients from 27 European countries were evaluated and 21 533 (78%) first-line empirical H. pylori treatments were included for analysis. Pretreatment resistance rates were 23% to clarithromycin, 32% to metronidazole and 13% to both. Triple therapy with amoxicillin and clarithromycin was most commonly prescribed (39%), achieving 81.5% modified intention-to-treat eradication rate. Over 90% eradication was obtained only with 10-day bismuth quadruple or 14-day concomitant treatments. Longer treatment duration, higher acid inhibition and compliance were associated with higher eradication rates. Time-trend analysis showed a region-dependent shift in prescriptions including abandoning triple therapies, using higher acid-inhibition and longer treatments, which was associated with an overall effectiveness increase (84%-90%). Conclusion Management of H. pylori infection by European gastroenterologists is heterogeneous, suboptimal and discrepant with current recommendations. Only quadruple therapies lasting at least 10 days are able to achieve over 90% eradication rates. European recommendations are being slowly and heterogeneously incorporated into routine clinical practice, which was associated with a corresponding increase in effectiveness

Sedation in digestive endoscopy: The Athens international position statements

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32: 425-442 SummaryBackground Guidelines and practice standards for sedation in endoscopy have been developed by various national professional societies. No attempt has been made to assess consensus among internationally recognized experts in this field. Aim To identify areas of consensus and dissent among international experts on a broad range of issues pertaining to the practice of sedation in digestive endoscopy. Methods Thirty-two position statements were reviewed during a 1-day meeting. Thirty-two individuals from 12 countries and four continents, representing the fields of gastroenterology, anaesthesiology and medical jurisprudence heard evidence-based presentations on each statement. Level of agreement among the experts for each statement was determined by an open poll. Results The principle recommendations included the following: (i) sedation improves patient tolerance and compliance for endoscopy, (ii) whenever possible, patients undergoing endoscopy should be offered the option of having the procedure either with or without sedation, (iii) monitoring of vital signs as well as the levels of consciousness and paindiscomfort should be performed routinely during endoscopy, and (iv) endoscopists and nurses with appropriate training can safely and effectively administer propofol to low-risk patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. Conclusions While the standards of practice vary from country to country, there was broad agreement among participants regarding most issues pertaining to sedation during endoscopy. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd