Long-term effects of fecal microbiota transplantation on gut microbiota after Helicobacter pylori eradication with bismuth quadruple therapy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection by bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT) is effective. However, the effect of BQT and subsequent fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) on the gut microbiota is less known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital in China from January 2019 to October 2020, with the primary endpoints the effect of BQT on the gut microbiota and the effect of FMT on the gut microbiota after bismuth quadruple therapy eradication therapy. A 14-day BQT with amoxicillin and clarithromycin was administered to H. pylori-positive subjects, and after eradication therapy, patients received a one-time FMT or placebo treatment. We then collected stool samples to assess the effects of 14-day BQT and FMT on the gut microbiota. 16 s rDNA and metagenomic sequencing were used to analyze the structure and function of intestinal flora. We also used Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) to evaluate gastrointestinal symptom during treatment. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were recruited and 15 were assigned to either FMT or placebo groups. After eradication therapy, alpha-diversity was decreased in both groups. At the phylum level, the abundance of Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes decreased, while Proteobacteria increased. At the genus level, the abundance of beneficial bacteria decreased, while pathogenic bacteria increased. Eradication therapy reduced some resistance genes abundance while increased the resistance genes abundance linked to Escherichia coli. While they all returned to baseline by Week 10. Besides, the difference was observed in Week 10 by the diarrhea score between two groups. Compared to Week 2, the GSRS total score and diarrhea score decreased in Week 3 only in FMT group. CONCLUSIONS: The balance of intestinal flora in patients can be considerably impacted by BQT in the short term, but it has reverted back to baseline by Week 10. FMT can alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms even if there was no evidence it promoted restoration of intestinal flora.

Development and validation of a prediction model for mechanical ventilation based on comorbidities in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Background: Timely recognition of respiratory failure and the need for mechanical ventilation is crucial in managing patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and reducing hospital mortality rate. A risk stratification tool could assist to avoid clinical deterioration of patients with COVID-19 and optimize allocation of scarce resources. Therefore, we aimed to develop a prediction model for early identification of patients with COVID-19 who may require mechanical ventilation. Methods: We included patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in United States. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the records of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database in 2020. Model construction involved the use of the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and multivariable logistic regression. The model's performance was evaluated based on discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. Results: The training set comprised 73,957 patients (5,971 requiring mechanical ventilation), whereas the validation set included 10,428 (887 requiring mechanical ventilation). The prediction model incorporating age, sex, and 11 other comorbidities (deficiency anemias, congestive heart failure, coagulopathy, dementia, diabetes with chronic complications, complicated hypertension, neurological disorders unaffecting movement, obesity, pulmonary circulation disease, severe renal failure, and weight loss) demonstrated moderate discrimination (area under the curve, 0.715; 95% confidence interval, 0.709-0.722), good calibration (Brier score = 0.070, slope = 1, intercept = 0) and a clinical net benefit with a threshold probability ranged from 2 to 34% in the training set. Similar model's performances were observed in the validation set. Conclusion: A robust prognostic model utilizing readily available predictors at hospital admission was developed for the early identification of patients with COVID-19 who may require mechanical ventilation. Application of this model could support clinical decision-making to optimize patient management and resource allocation.

Impact of Social Deprivation on Hospitalization and Intensive Care Unit Admission among COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately affected socially disadvantaged groups; however, the association between socioeconomic status and healthcare utilization among COVID-19 patients remains unclear. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the association between socioeconomic status and hospitalization and intensive care unit admission among COVID-19 patients. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant literature (updated to Jun 2022). Studies that investigated the association of social deprivation with hospitalization and intensive care unit admission in COVID-19 patients were included. The primary outcomes included risk of hospitalization and intensive care unit admission, measured by odds ratio. Results: Eleven studies covering 2,423,095 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Socially disadvantaged patients had higher odds of hospitalization in comparison to socially advantaged patients (odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 1.38; P<0.01). The odds of intensive care unit admission among more deprived patients was not significantly different from that of less deprived patients (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 0.78 to 1.35; P=0.85). These findings were proven robust through subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Socially disadvantaged populations have higher odds of hospitalization if they become infected with COVID-19. More effective medical support and interventions for these vulnerable populations are required to reduce inequity in healthcare utilization and alleviate the burden on healthcare systems.

10-Day and 14-day high-dose dual therapy for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori: A propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inconsistent eradication rates for Helicobacter pylori have been reported worldwide with dual therapy, perhaps owing to the difference in dose administration and treatment duration. This retrospective study aimed to determine whether high-dose dual therapy (HDDT) with different regimens leads to different eradication rates. The study compares the efficacy and safety of HDDT 10-day vs 14-day and investigates the factors that might affect the eradication rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two comparable treatment groups were based on propensity score matching (PSM). Patients were divided into two groups based on the therapy they underwent: 10-day HDDT and 14-day HDDT (20 mg esomeprazole and 750 mg amoxicillin, administered four times daily). The eradication rates, adverse events (AEs), patient compliance, CYP2C19 gene polymorphisms, and antibiotic resistance rates of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: The intention to treat (ITT) analysis showed that the eradication rates for 10-day and 14-day groups were 78.4% (95% CI 69.6%-87.2%) and 89.7% (95% CI 83.3%-96.2%; p = .039), respectively, while the per-protocol (PP) eradication rates were 80.0% (95% CI 71.3%-88.7%) and 92.9% (95% CI 87.4%-98.5%; p = .014), respectively. The corresponding drug-related AEs were 6.8% (6/88) and 5.7% (5/88; p = .755). No significant differences were observed between the compliance rates of the two groups. The CYP2C19 gene polymorphism had no effect on the eradication rates of the two groups. CONCLUSION: The results showed that the 14-day HDDT affords a higher H. pylori eradication rate than the 10-day HDDT.

High dose PPI-amoxicillin dual therapy for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori resistance to amoxicillin remains rare in many regions. Proton pump inhibitor-amoxicillin-containing high dose dual therapy (HDDT) has been proposed to treat H. pylori infection. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of PPI-amoxicillin HDDT for treatment of H. pylori infection in comparison with other regimens. METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, were searched to find relevant publications. Randomized controlled trials comparing HDDT with control regimens for H. pylori eradication in adult patients were included. The primary outcome was eradication rate by intention-to-treat analysis. Adverse events were analyzed as second outcome. RESULTS: A total of 15 trials with 3818 patients qualified for inclusion. The eradication rate of HDDT was neither significantly inferior nor superior to the recommended regimens such as triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and non-bismuth quadruple therapy [relative risk (RR): 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96-1.05, p = 0.870]. This finding was robust through subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. Trial sequential analysis showed that HDDT was equivalent to control regimens, and further similar trials were unlikely to alter the conclusions of this analysis. The frequency of adverse events was significantly lower in HDDT group (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: HDDT was equivalent to recommended first-line or rescue regimens with fewer adverse effects. The evidence from this meta-analysis supports the use of HDDT as first-line or rescue treatment for H. pylori infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019133002.

Efficacy of modified esomeprazole-amoxicillin dual therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection: an open-label, randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori resistance to amoxicillin was less than 5% in most countries. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-amoxicillin dual therapy dosing four times daily (q.i.d.) for 14 days could achieve an eradication rate of more than 85%. It is unclear whether dual therapy with shorter treatment duration or lower dosing frequency could also attain a satisfactory cure rate. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of two modified esomeprazole-amoxicillin dual therapies, 10-day q.i.d. and 14-day three times daily (t.i.d.) dual therapy, and investigate the factors that might affect the eradication rates. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A total of 253 patients were screened for eligibility and 208 patients were randomly assigned to 10-day dual therapy (esomeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 750 mg, all given four times daily) or 14-day dual therapy (esomeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 1000 mg, all given three times daily). RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the eradication rates for 10-day and 14-day groups were 79.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 70.2-87.4%] and 83.5% (95% CI: 74.3-90.5%) as first-line therapies; and 80% (95% CI: 44.4-97.5%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 46.2-95.0%) as rescue therapies. The adverse event rates were 5.9% and 5.0% for 10-day and 14-day groups, respectively. Smoking and compliance significantly affected the efficacy of PPI-amoxicillin dual therapies. CONCLUSION: The eradication rate of 10-day q.i.d. dual therapy was unacceptable, while that of the 14-day t.i.d. dual therapy was borderline acceptable for first-line therapy. The two dual therapies were well tolerated with few adverse effects.

Comparison of Polyethylene Glycol versus Lactulose Oral Solution for Bowel Preparation prior to Colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare a lactulose oral solution with a polyethylene glycol (PEG) formulation for colonoscopy preparation using the following metrics: quality of cleansing, colonoscopy outcomes, patient/physician satisfaction, and patient tolerability. METHODS: The enrolled patients were randomly divided into two groups and received a single 2 L dose of either PEG (PEG group) or lactulose (Lac group). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used for assessing the cleansing quality of the bowel preparations. Patient tolerability and adverse events were obtained through the completion of questionnaires. RESULTS: The lactulose oral solution showed superior bowel cleansing compared to PEG, as evidenced by higher BBPS scores in the Lac group for all segments of the colon (P < 0.05). The detection rates of polyps and intestinal lesions in the Lac group (30.68% and 36.36%, respectively) were significantly higher than those in the PEG group (12.50% vs. 13.63%, respectively). For the degree of satisfaction, the Lac group had significantly higher scores compared to the PEG group, as evaluated by both the patients and endoscopist. PEG was associated with an increased incidence of nausea. There were no statistical differences between the groups in terms of vomiting, abdominal pain or fullness, dizziness, unfavorable palatability, dry mouth, palpitation, tinnitus, and tongue numbness. CONCLUSION: A single 2 L dose of a lactulose oral solution had higher efficacy, improved tolerability, and acceptable safety for bowel preparation when compared to the same volume of PEG. Thus, a lactulose oral solution may be a potential bowel-cleansing option for colonoscopy preparation.

Eradication Efficacy of Modified Dual Therapy Compared with Bismuth-Containing Quadruple Therapy as a First-Line Treatment of Helicobacter pylori.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the effectiveness, adverse events, patient adherence, and costs of modified dual therapy compared with bismuth-containing quadruple therapy for treating Helicobacter pylori infection in Chinese patients. We also sought to determine whether modified dual therapy could be used as an alternative first-line treatment for H. pylori infection. METHODS: A total of 232 H. pylori-infected, treatment-naive patients were enrolled in this open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: the 14-day modified dual therapy group and the bismuth-containing quadruple therapy group. Eradication rates, drug-related adverse events, patient compliance, and drug costs were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The modified dual therapy group achieved eradication rates of 87.9%, 91.1%, and 91.1% as determined by the intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and modified intention-to-treat analyses, respectively. The eradication rates were similar compared with the bismuth-containing quadruple therapy group: 89.7%, 91.2%, and 90.4%. In addition, modified dual therapy ameliorated variations in the CYP2C19, IL-1B-511, and H. pylori VacA genotypes. There were no significant differences in the compliance rates between the 2 groups. The modified dual therapy group exhibited significantly less overall side effects compared with the bismuth-containing quadruple therapy group (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the cost of medications in the modified dual therapy was lower compared with that in the bismuth-containing quadruple therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Modified dual therapy at high dose and administration frequency is equally effective and safer and less costly compared with bismuth-containing quadruple therapy.