A comparison of oral ondansetron syrup or intravenous ondansetron loading dose regimens given in combination with dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and emesis in pediatric and adolescent patients receiving moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy

This double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) ondansetron with oral syrup ondansetron plus oral dexamethasone in the prevention of nausea and emesis in pediatric patients receiving moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy. On each day of chemotherapy, patients were administered ondansetron 5 mg/m(2) IV and placebo syrup orally (n = 215) or ondansetron 8 mg syrup orally and placebo IV (n = 223) plus dexamethasone 2-4 mg PO. Ondansetron 4 mg syrup PO was administered twice daily for 2 days following the cessation of chemotherapy. Complete or major control of emesis was obtained in 89% patients in the IV group and 88% patients in the oral syrup group during the worst day of chemotherapy treatment (90% CI: -6,4) and 85% and 82% patients, respectively, during the worst day of the study period (90% CI: -8,3). Intravenous or oral syrup ondansetron plus dexamethasone was well tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-indicated emesis in pediatric patients

European registry Helicobacter pylori (Hp-EuReg): How has clinical practice changed in Russia from 2013 to 2018 years

© 2019 Consilium Medikum. All rights reserved. The multicenter prospective observational study initiated by the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) is conducted in 27 countries in Europe. The data from the Russian part of the European registry for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection (European Registry on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection, protocol: “Hp-EuReg”) allows us to analyze the real clinical practice of diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori and compare it with international recommendations. Materials and methods. A comparative analysis of the data entered in the register by the Russian research centers “Hp-EuReg”, in the period from 2013 to 2018, was conducted. Results and discussion. Invasive diagnostic methods prevail for the primary diagnosis of H. pylori [histology - 20.3% (in 2013 year) - 43.9% (in 2018 year), rapid urease test - 31.7% and 47.8% respectively]. The most popular mode of eradication therapy is a 10-day triple therapy (62.8-76.2%), the effectiveness of which does not exceed 79% (per protocol). Invasive tests (histology) are the leading method for control the effectiveness of therapy, however, there is a tendency towards a wider use of non-invasive methods (H. pylori stool antigen - from 17% in 2013 to 29.3% in 2018 and urea breath test from 6.9 to 18.3%, respectively). Serological test to control the effectiveness of eradication is still used from 8.2% (2013) to 6.1% (2018). Eradication therapy was not performed in 28% of patients throughout the entire observation period. Conclusion. In Russia, despite approved domestic and international recommendations, deviations in clinical practice persist, both during eradication therapy and in monitoring the effectiveness of eradication therapy

European registry Helicobacter pylori (Hp-EuReg): How has clinical practice changed in Russia from 2013 to 2018 years

© 2019 Consilium Medikum. All rights reserved. The multicenter prospective observational study initiated by the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) is conducted in 27 countries in Europe. The data from the Russian part of the European registry for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection (European Registry on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection, protocol: “Hp-EuReg”) allows us to analyze the real clinical practice of diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori and compare it with international recommendations. Materials and methods. A comparative analysis of the data entered in the register by the Russian research centers “Hp-EuReg”, in the period from 2013 to 2018, was conducted. Results and discussion. Invasive diagnostic methods prevail for the primary diagnosis of H. pylori [histology - 20.3% (in 2013 year) - 43.9% (in 2018 year), rapid urease test - 31.7% and 47.8% respectively]. The most popular mode of eradication therapy is a 10-day triple therapy (62.8-76.2%), the effectiveness of which does not exceed 79% (per protocol). Invasive tests (histology) are the leading method for control the effectiveness of therapy, however, there is a tendency towards a wider use of non-invasive methods (H. pylori stool antigen - from 17% in 2013 to 29.3% in 2018 and urea breath test from 6.9 to 18.3%, respectively). Serological test to control the effectiveness of eradication is still used from 8.2% (2013) to 6.1% (2018). Eradication therapy was not performed in 28% of patients throughout the entire observation period. Conclusion. In Russia, despite approved domestic and international recommendations, deviations in clinical practice persist, both during eradication therapy and in monitoring the effectiveness of eradication therapy

Evropeyskiy registr Helicobacter pylori (Hp-EuReg): analiz dannykh 2360 bol'nykh, poluchavshikh terapiyu pervoy linii v Rossii

On behalf of the scientific Committee and researchers Hp-EuReg European Registry on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection («Hp-EuReg») - a multicenter prospective observational study initiated by the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group, conducted in 27 European countries in order to evaluate the real clinical practice of diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori and its comparison with international recommendations. Materials and methods. The analysis of 2360 patients entered in the register by the Russian centres of «Hp-EuReg» in 2013-2017, who were underwent 1st line eradication therapy. Results. The most common methods of primary diagnosis of H. pylori are histological (37.7%), rapid urease test (29.2%) and serology (29.7%). The duration of eradication therapy in 9.4% of cases was 7 days, in 65.3% - 10 days, and in 25.3% - 14 days. To control the effectiveness of treatment, H. pylori antigen in feces (31.3%), urea breath test (23.4%) and histological method (23.3%) were used. In 3.6% cases was used serology by mistake. In 17.3% of patients control was not carried out. The effectiveness of triple therapy with a PPI, amoxicillin, clarithromycin (per protocol) was 67.6%, with 7-day course, 81.1% at 10-day and 86.7% at 14-day course. Еradication rate of triple therapy with addition of bismuth (per protocol) reached 90,6% in the group receiving 10-day scheme and 93.6% in the group receiving the 14-day treatment. Conclusion. Significant deviations of clinical practice from expert recommendations, most pronounced at the stage of monitoring the effectiveness of therapy, were noted. The suboptimal efficacy of triple therapy is shown

Room for Improvement in the Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: Lessons from the European Registry on H. pylori Management (Hp-EuReg)

Background: Managing Helicobacter pylori infection requires constant decision making, and each decision is open to possible errors. Aim: The aim was to evaluate common mistakes in the eradication of H. pylori, based on the "European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management". Methods: European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management is an international multicentre prospective noninterventional registry evaluating the decisions and outcomes of H. pylori management by European gastroenterologists in routine clinical practice. Results: Countries recruiting more than 1000 patients were included (26,340 patients). The most common mistakes (percentages) were: (1) To use the standard triple therapy where it is ineffective (46%). (2) To prescribe eradication therapy for only 7 to 10 days (69%). (3) To use a low dose of proton pump inhibitors (48%). (4) In patients allergic to penicillin, to prescribe always a triple therapy with clarithromycin and metronidazole (38%). (5) To repeat certain antibiotics after eradication failure (>15%). (6) Failing to consider the importance of compliance with treatment (2%). (7) Not to check the eradication success (6%). Time-trend analyses showed progressive greater compliance with current clinical guidelines. Conclusion: The management of H. pylori infection by some European gastroenterologists is heterogeneous, frequently suboptimal and discrepant with current recommendations. Clinical practice is constantly adapting to updated recommendations, although this shift is delayed and slow