Susceptibility-guided versus empirical treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Empirical therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is limited by increasing antibiotic resistance and suboptimal eradication rates. Studies of the relative effectiveness of susceptibility-guided therapy have produced conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether susceptibility-guided therapy is superior to empirical therapy for H. pylori infection. METHODS: We searched articles listed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science through May 25, 2020, RCTs comparing susceptibility-guided versus empirical therapy for H. pylori infection. Outcomes, including effectiveness and safety, were analyzed in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 16 studies, comprising 2374 patients who received susceptibility-guided therapy and 2451 patients who received empirical treatment. In previously untreated subjects, susceptibility-guided therapy was slightly more effective than empirical therapy (intent to treat risk ratio [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.21; P < 0.0001, I2  = 75%). Susceptibility-guided therapy was superior to first-line clarithromycin-based triple therapy only when clarithromycin resistance exceeded 20% (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.30; P = 0.001, I2  = 81%). Susceptibility-guided therapy was not more effective than empirical quadruple therapy (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.13; P = 0.759, I2  = 80%). Three RCTs were performed exclusively among previously treated subjects, and were highly heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that susceptibility-guided treatment may be slightly superior to empirical first line triple therapy. Susceptibility- guided treatment does not appear to be superior to empirical first-line quadruple therapy or empirical rescue therapy.

Establishing an integrated gastroenterology service between a medical center and the community.

AIM: To combine community and hospital services in order to enable improvements in patient management, an integrated gastroenterology service (IGS) was established. METHODS: Referral patterns to specialist clinics were optimized; open access route for endoscopic procedures (including esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy) was established; family physicians' knowledge and confidence were enhanced; direct communication lines between experts and primary care physicians were opened. Continuing education, guidelines and agreed instructions for referral were promoted by the IGS. Six quality indicators were developed by the Delphi method, rigorously designed and regularly monitored. Improvement was assessed by comparing 2010, 2011 and 2012 indicators. RESULTS: An integrated delivery system in a specific medical field may provide a solution to a fragmented healthcare system impaired by a lack of coordination. In this paper we describe a new integrated gastroenterology service established in April 2010. Waiting time for procedures decreased: 3 mo in April 30th 2010 to 3 wk in April 30th 2011 and stayed between 1-3 wk till December 30th 2012. Average cost for patient's visit decreased from 691 to 638 NIS (a decrease of 7.6%). Six health indicators were improved significantly comparing 2010 to 2012, 2.5% to 67.5%: Bone densitometry for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, preventive medications for high risk patients on aspirin/NSAIDs, colonoscopy following positive fecal occult blood test, gastroscopy in Barrett's esophagus, documentation of family history of colorectal cancer, and colonoscopy in patients with a family history of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Establishment of an IGS was found to effectively improve quality of care, while being cost-effective.