Low-dose terlipressin plus banding ligation versus low-dose terlipressin alone in the prevention of very early rebleeding of oesophageal varices.

BACKGROUND: Very early rebleeding is frequently encountered in patients with acute oesophageal variceal bleeding. A trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety in patients with no active bleeding at endoscopy, receiving banding ligation association with terlipressin to prevent very early rebleeding. METHODS: Patients with no active variceal bleeding at endoscopy were evaluated. Eligible patients were randomised to receive terlipressin infusion alone for 5 days (Terlipressin group) or banding ligation plus terlipressin infusion for 2 days (Combined group). Primary endpoints were treatment failure and very early rebleeding. RESULTS: The terlipressin group was composed of 46 patients and the Combined group was composed of 47 patients. Both groups were comparable in terms of baseline data. Forty-eight-hour haemostasis was achieved in 91% in the Terlipressin group and 98% in the Combined group (p = 0.20). Very early rebleeding within 48-120 h occurred in 7 patients (15%) in the Terlipressin group but not in any patients (0%) in the Combined group (p = 0.006). Treatment failure was 24% in the Terlipressin group and 2% in the Combined group (p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis revealed that treatment (OR 0.081; 95% CI 0.010 to 0.627) was the only predictive factor of very early rebleeding. Blood requirement was significantly lower in the Combined group than in the Terlipressin group. Complications and 6-week survival were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of banding ligation and terlipressin infusion for 2 days was superior to only infusion of terlipressin for 5 days in the reduction of very early rebleeding and treatment failure in patients with inactive variceal bleeding at endoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN28353453.

Quadruple rescue therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection after two treatment failures.

BACKGROUND: A standard third-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is lacking, and antimicrobial sensitivity data for patients who failed eradication therapy are often unavailable in clinical practice. We therefore designed the prospective study to assess the efficacy of levofloxacin, amoxicillin, bismuth and rabeprazole quadruple therapy as a third-line treatment for H. pylori infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2005 to August 2007, 37 consecutive H. pylori-infected patients who had failed standard first-line and second-line treatments underwent a 10-day quadruple therapy comprising rabeprazole (20 mg b.i.d.), bismuth subcitrate (300 mg q.d.s.), amoxicillin (500 mg q.d.s.) and levofloxacin (500 mg o.d.). Follow-up endoscopy with rapid urease test, histological examination and culture was performed at 6 weeks after the end of treatment to evaluate the response to therapy. RESULTS: Helicobacter pylori was successfully eradicated in 31 out of 37 patients (84% by both intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis). All patients complied with the eradication therapies, and only seven patients (19%) complained of mild-to-moderate adverse events. Amoxicillin- and levofloxacin-resistant strains were observed in 17% and 22% of the patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between H. pylori eradication rates and antibiotic resistances. CONCLUSIONS: The 10-day levofloxacin- and amoxicillin-based quadruple therapy is well tolerated and achieves a high eradication rate as a third-line empirical treatment for H. pylori infection.

High-dose versus low-dose esomeprazole-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection.

BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized, controlled study was conducted to compare the efficacies of high-dose and low-dose esomeprazole-based triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication in Taiwan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2004 to June 2006, 240 H. pylori-infected patients were randomly assigned to undergo high-dose (40 mg b.d.) or low-dose (40 mg o.d.) esomeprazole combined with clarithromycin (500 mg b.d.) and amoxicillin (1 g b.d.) for one week. Follow-up endoscopy was performed at eight weeks after the end of treatment to evaluate the response to therapy. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated no differences between eradication rates of high-dose and low-dose groups (92% vs. 90%, respectively, P > 0.05). Per-protocol analysis yielded comparable results (95% vs. 93%). Both groups exhibited similar frequencies of adverse events (13% vs. 11%) and drug compliance (96% vs. 93%). Multivariate analysis indicated that only good compliance (odds ratio: 10.3, 95% CI, 3.0-35.7) was an independent predictor of treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates that low-dose esomeprazole-based triple therapy yields a similar eradication rate as high-dose esomeprazole-based therapy in Taiwan. Since the cost of the low-dose regime is lower than that of the high-dose regime, low-dose esomeprazole-based triple therapy can reasonably be recommended for the first-line eradication of H. pylori for Taiwanese and probably most Asians.

Randomized comparison of two rescue therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection.

BACKGROUND: Bismuth salts are not available worldwide. It remains unknown whether clarithromycin can replace bismuth salts as an adjuvant agent in the rescue regimens for Helicobacter pylori infection. We therefore designed the prospective study to compare the efficacies of two rescue therapies for H. pylori infection after standard triple therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients who failed H. pylori eradication using proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and amoxicillin were randomly assigned to undergo rescue therapy with esomeprazole, clarithromycin, tetracycline and metronidazole (ECTM group, n = 46) or esomeprazole, bismuth subcitrate, tetracycline and metronidazole (EBTM group, n = 47). Follow-up endoscopy was performed at 8 weeks after the end of treatment to assess the treatment response. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated both groups had similar eradication rates (ECTM 74% vs. EBTM 77%; P = 0.76) and drug compliance (ECTM 94% vs. EBTM 96%; P = 0.68). However, the frequency of adverse events in the ECTM group was higher than that in EBTM group (ECTM 57% vs. EBTM 36%, P = 0.05). In the EBTM group, eradication rate of metronidazole-resistant strains was lower than that of metronidazole-susceptible strains (67%[8/12] vs. 100%[9/9], P = 0.05). However, eradication rates were similar between metronidazole-susceptible and metronidazole-resistant strains in ECTM group (69%[9/13] vs. 70%[7/10], P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The new ECTM second-line therapy can achieve similar eradication rate as standard EBTM therapy. It may be very useful in countries where bismuth salts are not available.