14-day tailored PCR-guided triple therapy versus 14-day non-Bismuth concomitant quadruple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: A multicenter, open-label randomized noninferiority controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The systematic use of susceptibility testing and tailored first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication has yet to be established. AIM: To compare 14-day tailored PCR-guided triple therapy to 14-day non-Bismuth concomitant quadruple therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized noninferiority controlled trial. Naive adult patients with Helicobacter pylori infection were treated with 14-day tailored PCR-guided triple therapy (esomeprazole 40 mg and amoxicillin 1000 mg b.d. plus clarithromycin 500 mg or levofloxacin 500 mg b.d. according to clarithromycin susceptibility) or 14-day non-Bismuth concomitant quadruple therapy (esomeprazole 40 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and metronidazole 500 mg b.d.). The primary endpoint was H. pylori eradication. RESULTS: We screened 991 patients for eligibility and randomized 241 patients. The first-line eradication rate was 99.2% in the tailored PCR-guided group and 95.9% in the control group (ITT population; absolute difference of +3.30%, with a lower bound of CI at -0.68%). Both first-line therapies were well tolerated, with a formally significant difference in favor of the tailored PCR-guided group (61.4% vs. 41.2%, p = 0.003). Economic analyses revealed a lower cost of the tailored PCR-guided arm, with a 92% chance of being jointly more effective and less expensive than the control arm in the ITT population. CONCLUSION: In a country with a high level of clarithromycin resistance, the results of our study demonstrated the noninferiority of 14-day tailored PCR-guided triple therapy as a first-line H. pylori eradication therapy compared to 14-day non-Bismuth quadruple therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02576236).

COVID-19 profiles in general practice: a latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) were on the front line of the COVID-19 outbreak. Identifying clinical profiles in COVID-19 might improve patient care and enable closer monitoring of at-risk profiles. OBJECTIVES: To identify COVID-19 profiles in a population of adult primary care patients, and to determine whether the profiles were associated with negative outcomes and persistent symptoms. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In a prospective multicentre study, 44 GPs from multiprofessional primary care practices in the Paris area of France recruited 340 consecutive adult patients (median age: 47 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 during the first two waves of the epidemic. METHOD AND OUTCOME: A latent class (LC) analysis with 11 indicators (clinical signs and symptoms) was performed. The resulting profiles were characterised by a 3-month composite outcome (COVID-19-related hospital admission and/or death) and persistent symptoms three and 6 months after inclusion. RESULTS: We identified six profiles: 'paucisymptomatic' (LC1, 9%), 'anosmia and/or ageusia' (LC2, 12.9%), 'influenza-like syndrome with anosmia and ageusia' (LC3, 15.5%), 'influenza-like syndrome without anosmia or ageusia' (LC4, 24.5%), 'influenza-like syndrome with respiratory impairment' (LC5) and a 'complete form' (LC6, 17.7%). At 3 months, 7.4% of the patients were hospitalised (with higher rates in LC5), and 18% had persistent symptoms (with higher rates in LC5 and LC6). At 6 months, 6.4% of the patients had persistent symptoms, with no differences between LCs. CONCLUSION: Our findings might help GPs to identify patients at risk of persistent COVID-19 symptoms and hospital admission and then set up procedures for closer monitoring.