Probiotic supplementation with Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici for Helicobacter pylori therapy: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of a probiotic supplementation for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy. DESIGN: Consecutive adult naive patients with a diagnosis of H. pylori infection who were prescribed eradication therapy according to clinical practice (10-day triple or nonbismuth quadruple concomitant therapy) randomly received probiotics (1 × 109 colony-forming units each strain, Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici) or matching placebo. Side effects at the end of the treatment, measured through a modified De Boer Scale, were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were compliance with therapy and eradication rates. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients (33% triple therapy, 66% non-bismuth quadruple therapy) were included [placebo (n = 106) or probiotic (n = 103)]. No differences were observed regarding side effects at the end of the treatment between groups (ß -0.023, P 0.738). Female gender (P < 0.001) and quadruple therapy (P 0.007) were independent predictors of side effects. No differences in compliance were observed, regardless of the study group or eradication therapy. Eradication rates were similar between groups [placebo 95% (95% confidence interval (CI), 89% to 98%) vs probiotic 97% (95% CI, 92% to 99%), P 0.721]. There were no relevant differences in cure rates (>90% in all cases) between triple and quadruple concomitant therapy. CONCLUSION: Probiotic supplementation containing Lactobacillus Plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici to H. pylori treatment neither decreased side effects nor improved compliance with therapy or eradication rates.

Efficacy and Safety of Quinolone-Containing Rescue Therapies After the Failure of Non-Bismuth Quadruple Treatments for Helicobacter pylori Eradication: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anti-Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment fails in a significant percentage of cases. Although this percentage has been reduced to 5-15% with the use of non-bismuth quadruple therapies, limited data exist regarding rescue after failure of these treatments. AIM: The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of quinolone-containing therapies after the failure of non-bismuth quadruple regimens. METHODS: Studies evaluating the efficacy of second-line quinolone-containing therapies after the failure of non-bismuth sequential or concomitant regimens were selected. Efficacy (by intention to treat) was analyzed using the inverse variance method; safety data were recorded as the occurrence of any adverse event. The risk of bias of each primary study was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The quality of the evidence was summarized using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. The 10-day levofloxacin/amoxicillin/proton pump inhibitor (PPI) triple therapy (LT) achieved eradication rates of 80% (95% CI 71-88). Regarding the moxifloxacin/amoxicillin/PPI triple therapy (MT), its efficacy was higher when administered for 14 days instead of 7 days (80 vs 63%). Two studies investigated the levofloxacin/bismuth-containing quadruple therapies (LBQ) obtaining eradication rates over 90%. Safety was similar in all treatments. The sensitivity analyses showed that results for LT were robust, but MT had weak evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Quinolone-containing triple therapies reported eradication rates ≤80%, but LBQ therapies showed encouraging rates. However, the strength of the evidence was very low. The efficacy of LBQ should be corroborated in more studies, and the usefulness of quinolones needs to be evaluated in areas with moderate to high bacterial resistances.

Two-week, high-dose proton pump inhibitor, moxifloxacin triple Helicobacter pylori therapy after failure of standard triple or non-bismuth quadruple treatments.

BACKGROUND: Aim was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a moxifloxacin-containing second-line triple regimen in patients whose previous Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment failed. METHODS: Prospective multicentre study including patients in whom a triple therapy or a non-bismuth-quadruple-therapy failed. Moxifloxacin (400mg qd), amoxicillin (1g bid), and esomeprazole (40 mg bid) were prescribed for 14 days. Eradication was confirmed by (13)C-urea-breath-test. Compliance was determined through questioning and recovery of empty medication envelopes. RESULTS: 250 patients were consecutively included (mean age 48 ± 15 years, 11% with ulcer). Previous (failed) therapy included: standard triple (n = 179), sequential (n = 27), and concomitant (n = 44); 97% of patients took all medications, 4 were lost to follow-up. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates were 82.4% (95% CI, 77-87%) and 85.7% (95% CI, 81-90%). Cure rates were similar independently of diagnosis (ulcer, 77%; dyspepsia, 82%) and previous treatment (standard triple, 83%; sequential, 89%; concomitant, 77%). At multivariate analysis, only age was associated with eradication (OR = 0.957; 95% CI, 0.933-0.981). Adverse events were reported in 25.2% of patients: diarrhoea (9.6%), abdominal pain (9.6%), and nausea (9.2%). CONCLUSION: 14-day moxifloxacin-containing triple therapy is an effective and safe second-line strategy in patients whose previous standard triple therapy or non-bismuth quadruple (sequential or concomitant) therapy has failed, providing a simple alternative to bismuth quadruple regimen.

Oral and intravenous iron treatment in inflammatory bowel disease: hematological response and quality of life improvement.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of oral and intravenous iron treatment in anemic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, considering both hematological and quality-of-life outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter study in IBD patients with iron deficiency anemia. Patients having hemoglobin >10 g/dL were prescribed oral ferrous sulfate. If hemoglobin <10 g/dL, intravenous (sucrose) iron was administered. Oral iron-intolerant patients were changed to intravenous treatment. Clinical (Truelove/Harvey-Bradshaw), hematological (response defined as hemoglobin normalization), and quality-of-life (shortened CCVEII-9 questionnaire) evaluations were performed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: 100 IBD patients (59 Crohn's disease, 41 ulcerative colitis) were included. Mean basal hemoglobin levels were 10.8 +/- 1.3 g/dL (range, 6.6-12.9). Seventy-eight patients received oral treatment and 22 intravenous iron. Hemoglobin normalization was achieved in 86% of patients: 89% with oral, and 77% with intravenous iron. An IBD activity increase was not demonstrated in any patient. Four patients (5.1%) showed oral iron intolerance leading to discontinuation of treatment. No adverse events were reported for intravenous iron. Hemoglobin correlated with CCVEII-9 (P < 0.001). The CCVEII-9 score increased in patients who normalized hemoglobin levels in 3 months (from 58 +/- 9 to 73 +/- 10) or 6 months (54 +/- 9, 68 +/- 12, and 74 +/- 10) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral iron treatment is effective and well tolerated in most IBD patients, and does not exacerbate the symptoms of the underlying IBD. Intravenous iron, on the other hand, is an effective and safe alternative treatment for iron deficiency anemia in more severely anemic or intolerant patients. Anemia correction with iron treatment is associated with a relevant improvement in the patients' quality of life.