Sequential Metronidazole-Furazolidone or Clarithromycin-Furazolidone Compared to Clarithromycin-Based Quadruple Regimens for the Eradication of Helicobacter pylori in Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Furazolidone is a much cheaper drug with a very low resistance against Helicobacter pylori compared to clarithromycin. We aim to evaluate safety and efficacy of a sequential furazolidone-based regimen versus clarithromycin-based therapy in H. pylori eradication for ulcer disease.Materials: Patients with proven peptic ulcer or duodenitis were randomized into three groups: OAB-M-F; metronidazole (M) (500 mg bid) for the first 5 days, followed by furazolidone (F) (200 mg bid) for the second 5 days; OAC-P; clarithromycin (C) (500 mg bid) for 10 days; and OAB-C-F; clarithromycin (500 mg bid) for the first 5 days and furazolidone (200 mg bid) for the second 5 days. All groups received omeprazole (O) (20 mg bid) and amoxicillin (A) (1 g bid). Groups OAB-M-F and OAB-C-F were also given bismuth subcitrate (B) (240 mg bid), whereas a placebo (P) was given to group OAC-P. Adverse events were scored and recorded. Two months after treatment, a C13-urea breath test was performed.Results: Three hundred and ten patients were enrolled and 92 (OAB-M-F), 95 (OAC-P), and 98 (OAB-C-F) completed the study. The intention-to-treat eradication rates were 78.5 (95 CI = 69-85), 81.1 (95 CI = 73-88), and 82 (95 CI = 74-89), and per-protocol eradication rates were 91.3 (95 CI = 83-96), 90.4 (95 CI = 82-95), and 88.7 (95 CI = 81-94), for group OAB-M-F, OAC-P, and OAB-C-F, respectively. Eradication rate differences did not reach statistical significance. The most common adverse event, bad taste, occurred in all groups, but more frequently in groups OAC-P (34) and OAB-C-F (32), than OAB-M-F (14) (p<.05). Adverse symptoms score were 0.88 ± 2.05 in group OAB-M-F, 1.15 ± 1.40 in group OAC-P, and 1.87 ± 1.62 in group OAB-C-F.Conclusion: Furazolidone can replace clarithromycin in H. pylori eradication regimens because of lack of development of resistance and very low cost. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eradication of H. pylori Infection: the Challenge is on if Standard Therapy Fails

The recommended standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, consisting of a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin and amoxicillin or metronidazole, can reach eradication rates in over 90%. However, in recent years resistance to antibiotics has increased and eradication rates have declined. Approximately one in five patients need a second-line therapy because eradication therapy fails. Second-line treatment with a bismuth-based quadruple therapy leads to satisfactory eradication rates, but bismuth is not available in many countries. Modern second- and third-line treatments can only be successful if they are adapted to the current resistance situation and they need to evolve continuously. Moreover, pharmacodynamic effects due to polymorphisms of the cytochrome P450 system are important. Because therapy adherence is significantly associated with therapy success, modern regimens if possible should be easy to take and well tolerated. In recent years, various novel salvage-therapy regimens have been investigated that significantly improve treatment options

Second-Line Rescue Therapy of Helicobacter Pylori Infection

Helicobacter pylori infection is the main known cause of gastritis, gastroduodenal ulcer disease and gastric cancer. After more than 20 years of experience in H. pylori treatment, however, the ideal regimen to treat this infection has still to be found. Nowadays, apart from having to know well first-line eradication regimens, we must also be prepared to face treatment failures. Therefore, in designing a treatment strategy we should not focus on the results of primary therapy alone, but also on the final (overall) eradication rate. The choice of a ‘rescue’ treatment depends on which treatment is used initially. If a first-line clarithromycin-based regimen was used, a second-line metronidazole-based treatment (quadruple therapy) may be used afterwards, and then a levofloxacin-based combination would be a third-line ‘rescue’ option. Alternatively, it has recently been suggested that levofloxacin-based ‘rescue’ therapy constitutes an encouraging second-line strategy, representing an alternative to quadruple therapy in patients with previous PPI-clarithromycin-amoxicillin failure, with the advantage of efficacy, simplicity and safety. In this case, quadruple regimen may be reserved as a third-line ‘rescue’ option. Finally, rifabutin-based ‘rescue’ therapy constitutes an encouraging empirical fourth-line strategy after multiple previous eradication failures with key antibiotics such as amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, tetracycline, and levofloxacin. Even after two consecutive failures, several studies have demonstrated that H. pylori eradication can finally be achieved in almost all patients if several ‘rescue’ therapies are consecutively given. Therefore, the attitude in H. pylori eradication therapy failure, even after two or more unsuccessful attempts, should be to fight and not to surrender