Sequential Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in Myanmar; a randomized clinical trial of efficacy and tolerability.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is little published research to examine the best approach to the management of Helicobacter pylori in Myanmar. This study aimed to determine the relative efficacy and tolerability of sequential eradication therapy compared to Myanmar's current recommendation of a concomitant four drug regimen. METHODS: Patients were screened for H. pylori using monoclonal Stool Antigen Testing (SAT). Those testing positive were randomized 1:1 to receive receive Myanmar's first-line regimen of 14 days of concomitant rabeprazole, clarithromycin, amoxycillin and tinidazole (140 pills, cost US$23) or 10 days of sequential rabeprazole, clarithromycin, amoxycillin and tinidazole (60 pills, cost US$10). Adherence and adverse effects were recorded, and the efficacy of the regimens assessed with repeat SAT. RESULTS: Of the 1011 patients screened for H. pylori infection, 313 (31%) tested positive. There was no statistical difference in the cure rates of the two regimens in either intention-to-treat: 128/157 (82%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 75-87%) receiving sequential therapy versus 123/156 (79%; 95% CI: 72-85%) receiving concomitant therapy (P = 0.55) or per-protocol analysis: 125/131 (95%; 95% CI: 90-98) receiving sequential therapy versus 121/130 (93%; 95% CI: 87-96) receiving concomitant therapy (P = 0.42). Side effects of therapy were reported in 54/157 (47%) patients taking sequential therapy compared with 62/156 (53%) taking concomitant therapy, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: In this high-burden, resource-poor setting, less expensive sequential therapy was as effective and as well tolerated as the currently recommended concomitant four drug regimen for eradication of H. pylori.

Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis.

BACKGROUND: Infection with the protozoan Entamoeba histolytica is common in low- and middle-income countries, and up to 100,000 people with severe disease die every year. Adequate therapy for amoebic colitis is necessary to reduce illness, prevent development of complicated disease and extraintestinal spread, and decrease transmission. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the available literature up to 22 March 2018. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, mRCT, and conference proceedings. We contacted individual researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and we checked reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of antiamoebic drugs given alone or in combination, compared with placebo or another antiamoebic drug, for treating adults and children with a diagnosis of amoebic colitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials and extracted and analysed the data. We calculated clinical and parasitological failure rates and rates of relapse and adverse events as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. We determined statistical heterogeneity and explored possible sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analysis by using trial quality to assess the robustness of reported results. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 41 trials (4999 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this review. In this update, we added four trials to the 37 trials included in the first published review version. Thirty trials were published over 20 years ago. Only one trial used adequate methods of randomization and allocation concealment, was blinded, and analysed all randomized participants. Only one trial used an E histolytica stool antigen test, and two trials used amoebic culture.Tinidazole may be more effective than metronidazole for reducing clinical failure (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; 477 participants, eight trials; low-certainty evidence) and is probably associated with fewer adverse events (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 477 participants, 8 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with metronidazole, combination therapy may result in fewer parasitological failures (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.86; 720 participants, 3 trials; low-certainty evidence), but we are uncertain which combination is more effective than another. Evidence is insufficient to allow conclusions regarding the efficacy of other antiamoebic drugs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with metronidazole, tinidazole may be more effective in reducing clinical failure and may be associated with fewer adverse events. Combination drug therapy may be more effective for reducing parasitological failure compared with metronidazole alone. However, these results are based mostly on small trials conducted over 20 years ago with a variety of poorly defined outcomes. Tests that detect E histolytica more accurately are needed, particularly in countries where concomitant infection with other bacteria and parasites is common.

Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Concomitant Therapy vs. Triple Therapy for the First-Line Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection.

BACKGROUND: Whether concomitant therapy is superior to triple therapy of various treatment lengths for the first-line treatment of H. pylori remains controversial. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of concomitant therapy and triple therapy given for 5-14 days. METHODS: Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of concomitant therapy for 5-14 days and proton pump inhibitor-amoxicillin-clarithromycin (PAC)-based triple therapy for 5-14 days in the first-line treatment of adult patients with H. pylori infection published from 1990 to January 2018 were searched from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Abstracts from international annual conferences were also searched. The primary and secondary outcomes were the eradication rate according to the intention-to-treat analysis and the adverse effects, respectively. Subgroup analyses were also performed according to treatment length. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017081328. RESULTS: Of the 639 articles identified, 23 RCTs including 3305 patients in the concomitant therapy group and 3327 patients in the triple therapy group were eligible. Overall, concomitant therapy was superior to triple therapy [risk ratio (RR): 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.21; p < 0.001]. However, there were significant heterogeneity (I2 = 74.0%, p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, 5-day concomitant therapy was superior to 5-day triple therapy (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.04-1.62; p = 0.02), 5- or 7-day concomitant therapy was superior to 7-day triple therapy (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.12-1.21; p < 0.001), and 5- or 7-, or 10- or 14-day concomitant therapy was superior to 10-day triple therapy (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.08-1.23; p < 0.001). However, 5- or 10-day concomitant therapy was not superior to 14-day triple therapy (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89-1.16; p = 0.796). The frequency of adverse effects was significantly higher in concomitant therapy than triple therapy (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06-1.34; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant therapy given for 5 or 10 days was superior to 5- or 7-, or 10-day PAC-based triple therapy, but was not superior to 14-day triple therapy.

Comparative efficacy of drugs for treating giardiasis: a systematic update of the literature and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: Giardiasis is the commonest intestinal protozoal infection worldwide. The current first-choice therapy is metronidazole. Recently, other drugs with potentially higher efficacy or with fewer and milder side effects have increased in popularity, but evidence is limited by a scarcity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the many treatment options available. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a useful tool to compare multiple treatments when there is limited or no direct evidence available. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and side effects of all available drugs for the treatment of giardiasis. Methods: We selected all RCTs included in systematic reviews and expert reviews of all treatments for giardiasis published until 2014, extended the systematic literature search until 2016, and identified new studies by scanning reference lists for relevant studies. We then conducted an NMA of all available treatments for giardiasis by comparing parasitological cure (efficacy) and side effects. Results: We identified 60 RCTs from 58 reports (46 from published systematic reviews, 8 from reference lists and 4 from the updated systematic search). Data from 6714 patients, 18 treatments and 42 treatment comparisons were available. Tinidazole was associated with higher parasitological cure than metronidazole [relative risk (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.12-1.35] and albendazole (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.21-1.50). Taking into consideration clinical efficacy, side effects and amount of the evidence, tinidazole was found to be the most effective drug. Conclusions: We provide additional evidence that single-dose tinidazole is the best available treatment for giardiasis in symptomatic and asymptomatic children and adults.

Comparison of hybrid and sequential therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication in Iran: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The eradication of Helicobacter pylori has been always a concern. In the present study, we aimed to compare two novel treatments in Iran. METHOD: Four hundred and twenty patients with peptic ulcer and naïve H. pylori infection were randomized in the study. Two hundred and ten patients received hybrid therapy: pantoprazole 40 mg/b.i.d. and amoxicillin 1 g/b.i.d. for 14 days plus 500 mg clarithromycin and 500 mg tinidazole, both twice daily for the last 7 days. The other 210 patients received sequential therapy: 40 mg pantoprazole/b.i.d. for 10 days and 1 g amoxicillin/b.i.d. for the first 5 days, followed by 500 mg clarithromycin/b.i.d. and 500 mg tinidazole/b.i.d. for the last 5 days. C¹4-urea breath test was performed 8 weeks after the treatment. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-six patients (197 patients in the hybrid group and 199 patients in the sequential group) completed the study. The compliance rates were 96.7 and 98.6% for the two groups, respectively. The intention-to-treat eradication rate was 89.5% (95% CI = 85.4-93.6) for the hybrid group and 76.7% (95% CI = 71-82.4) for the sequential group (p = .001), and the per-protocol eradication rates were 92.9% (95% CI = 89.2-96.5) and 79.9% (95% CI = 74.1-85.4) for the hybrid and sequential groups (p = .001), respectively. Severe adverse effects were observed in 2.4% of patients in the hybrid group and 3.8% of those in the sequential group. CONCLUSION: According to our results, sequential regimen does not seem to be an appropriate therapy for H. pylori eradication in the Iranian population, whereas hybrid therapy showed to be more effective. However, considering the high cost of clarithromycin in Iran, we recommend further studies to compare hybrid therapy with bismuth-containing regimens or to assess the effects of hybrid therapies with periods shorter than 14 days.

Ten and eight-day sequential therapy in comparison to standard triple therapy for eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection: a randomized controlled study on efficacy and tolerability.

BACKGROUND: Sequential therapy (SQT) is effective in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori and could become an alternative to standard triple therapy (STT). AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of SQT, for either 8 or 10 days, with a 7-day STT. METHODS: A total of 270 naive H. pylori-positive patients were randomized to receive: SQT for 8 days (SQT-8, n=90) or 10 days (SQT-10, n=90) including esomeprazole 20 mg twice daily (bid) associated with amoxicillin 1000 mg bid (early 4 and 5 d, respectively), followed by esomeprazole 20 mg bid associated with clarithromycin 500 mg bid plus tinidazole 500 mg bid (last 4 and 5 d, respectively); STT (n=90) including esomeprazole 20 mg bid plus amoxicillin 1000 mg bid and clarithromycin 500 mg bid for 7 days. Tolerability was assessed by scoring the severity of symptoms. RESULTS: Eradication rates after SQT-8 and SQT-10 were higher than that of after STT at both intention-to-treat (83% and 86% vs. 66%, P<0.02) and per-protocol analysis (90% and 88% vs. 75%, P<0.05), whereas no difference was found between the 2 SQTs. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that SQT, for 8 or 10 days, is well tolerated and highly effective in H. pylori eradication and could represent a valid alternative to STT. Further studies, with more power, on larger populations and from other countries are necessary to validate the present findings.

Antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis.

BACKGROUND: Entamoeba histolytica infection is common in developing countries, and up to 100,000 individuals with severe disease die every year. Adequate therapy for amoebic colitis is necessary to reduce the severity of illness, prevent development of complicated disease and extraintestinal spread, and decrease transmission. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate antiamoebic drugs for treating amoebic colitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: In September 2008, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, mRCT, and conference proceedings. We contacted individual researchers, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies, and checked reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of antiamoebic drugs given alone or in combination, compared with placebo or another antiamoebic drug for treating adults and children diagnosed with amoebic colitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted and analysed the data. We calculated clinical and parasitological failure rates, relapse, and adverse events as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. We determined statistical heterogeneity and explored possible sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analysis using trial quality to assess the robustness of the results. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven trials, enrolling 4487 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Only one trial used adequate methods for randomization and allocation concealment, was blinded, and analysed all randomized participants. Only one trial used a E. histolytica stool antigen test. Tinidazole reduced clinical failure compared with metronidazole (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; 477 participants, eight trials) and was associated with fewer adverse events. Compared with metronidazole, combination therapy resulted in fewer parasitological failures (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.86; 720 participants, 3 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tinidazole is more effective in reducing clinical failure compared with metronidazole and has fewer associated adverse events. Combination drug therapy is more effective in reducing parasitological failure compared with metronidazole alone. However, these results are based on trials with poor methodological quality so there is uncertainty in these conclusions. Further trials of the efficacy of antiamoebic drugs, with better methodological quality, are recommended. More accurate tests to detect E. histolytica are needed, particularly in countries where concomitant infection with other bacteria and parasites is common.

[Tinidazole: a classical anaerobical drug with multiple potential uses nowadays]. / Tinidazol: un anaerobicida clásico con múltiples usos potenciales en la actualidad.

Tinidazole is a 5-nitroimidazole active in vitro against a wide variety of anaerobic bacteria and protozoa. Tinidazole is an effective treatment against anaerobic microorganisms based on its pharmacokinetic characteristics (C(max) 51 microg/ml, t(1/2) 12.5 h) and its excellent in vitro activity. Its long half-life allows once a day regimens. Tinidazole is as effective as metronidazole in the treatment of infections caused by T. vaginalis, giardiasis and amebiasis and bacterial vaginosis, malaria, odontogenic infections, anaerobic bacterial infections (pelvic inflammatory disease, diabetic foot), surgical prophylaxis (abdominal and hysterectomy) and Helicobacter pylori eradication. Tinidazole was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of infections caused by Trichomonas vaginalis, Entamoeba histolytica and Giardia lamblia.

Sequential therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication: 10- or 14-day regimen?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Standard 10-day sequential therapy is advised as first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication by current Italian guidelines. Some data suggested that a 14-day regimen may achieve higher eradication rates. This study compared the efficacy of sequential therapy administered for either 10- or 14-days. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, open-label study enrolled patients with H. pylori infection without previous treatment. Patients were receiving a sequential therapy for either 10 or 14 days with esomeprazole 40 mg and amoxicillin 1 g (5 or 7 days) followed by esomeprazole 40 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg and tinidazole 500 mg (5 or 7 days), all given twice daily. Bacterial eradication was checked using 13C-urea breath test. Eradication cure rates were calculated at both Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. RESULTS: A total of 291 patients were enrolled, including 146 patients in 10-day and 145 in the 14-day regimen. The eradication rates were 87% (95% CI = 81.5-92.4) and 90.3% (95% CI = 85.5-95.1) at ITT analysis with the 10- and 14-day regimen, respectively, and 92.7% (95% CI = 88.3-97) and 97% (95% CI = 94.2-99.9) at PP analysis (p =0.37). Among patients, who earlier had interrupted therapy, bacterial eradication was achieved in 8 out of 9 who completed the first therapy phase and performed at least >/=3 days of triple therapy in the second phase. CONCLUSION: This study found that both 10- and 14-day sequential therapies achieved a high eradication rate for first-line H. pylori therapy in clinical practice.

Protocol for a randomized clinical trial exploring the effect of antimicrobial agents on the penile microbiota, immunology and HIV susceptibility of Ugandan men.

BACKGROUND: The foreskin is the main site of HIV acquisition in a heterosexual uncircumcised man, but many men in endemic countries are reluctant to undergo penile circumcision (PC). Observational studies suggest that proinflammatory anaerobic bacteria are enriched on the uncircumcised penis, where they may enhance HIV susceptibility through increased foreskin inflammatory cytokines and the recruitment of HIV-susceptible CD4+ target cells. This trial will examine the impact of systemic and topical antimicrobials on ex vivo foreskin HIV susceptibility. METHODS/DESIGN: This randomized, open-label clinical trial will randomize 125 HIV-negative Ugandan men requesting voluntary PC to one of five arms (n = 25 each). The control group will receive immediate PC, while the four intervention groups will defer PC for 1 month and be provided in the interim with either oral tinidazole, penile topical metronidazole, topical clindamycin, or topical hydrogen peroxide. The impact of these interventions on HIV entry into foreskin-derived CD4+ T cells will be quantified ex vivo at the time of PC using a clade A, R5 tropic HIV pseudovirus assay (primary endpoint); secondary endpoints include the impact of antimicrobials on immune parameters and the microbiota of the participant's penis and of the vagina of their female partner (if applicable), assessed by multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and 16S rRNA sequencing. DISCUSSION: There is a critical need to develop acceptable, simple, and effective means of HIV prevention in men unwilling to undergo PC. This trial will provide insight into the causative role of the foreskin microbiota on HIV susceptibility, and the impact of simple microbiota-focused clinical interventions. This may pave the way for future clinical trials using low-cost, nonsurgical intervention(s) to reduce HIV risk in uncircumcised heterosexual men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03412071 . Retrospectively registered on 26 January 2018.

Comparative study of tinidazole versus metronidazole in treatment of amebic liver abscess: A randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Metronidazole is a drug of choice for amebic liver abscess (ALA), but has long course and significant side effects. Thus, drugs like tinidazole with a better tolerability record need evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial at the Department of Gastroenterology, SMS Hospital, Jaipur, India. One hundred and fifty admitted patients were randomized into two treatment groups, metronidazole (group M, n = 75) and tinidazole (group T, n = 75). Patients were observed for clinical response, laboratory parameters, imaging, and side effects. Early clinical response (ECR) was defined as the absence of fever and abdominal pain within 72 h of treatment. Symptomatic clinical response (SCR) was defined as the absence of fever and abdominal pain irrespective of duration of treatment required. Follow up was done at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: ECR was 62.3% in group T vs. 37.7% in group M (p = 0.02). SCR was shorter in group T than group M (3.29 ± 1.61 days vs. 5.67 ± 2.93, p ≤ 0.001). Mean residual volume at the end of 1 month was lower in group T (130.7 ± 108.1 vs. 184.7 ± 143.3 mL, p = 0.01) and no significant difference was seen at 3 and 6 months. Tinidazole was better tolerated with fewer side effects. Low socioeconomic status, baseline abscess volume > 500 mL, hypoalbuminemia, pleural effusion, and history of ethanol use were associated with a late clinical response on univariate analysis of which low socioeconomic status was the only associated factor. CONCLUSION: Tinidazole, as compared to metronidazole, has early clinical response, shorter treatment course, favorable rate of recovery, and high tolerability; thus, tinidazole can be preferred over metronidazole in ALA.

Comparison between daily single-dose triple therapy and conventional triple therapy on patient compliance and Helicobacter pylori eradication: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The poor compliance to treatment of Helicobacter pylori-infected patients is well-known. We evaluated the efficacy of daily single-dose triple therapy as compared to conventional triple therapy on patient compliance and eradication of H. pylori infection. METHODS: In the study group, 105 patients received esomeprazole 40 mg, tinidazole 1 g, and levofloxacin 500 mg once-daily for 14 days. One hundred and seven patients in the control group received lansoprazole 30 mg, amoxicillin 1 g, and clarithromycin 500 mg twice-daily for 14 days. Four weeks after completing therapy, urea breath test was performed to assess the eradication of H. pylori infection. RESULTS: The eradication rates by intention-to-treat analysis were 86% and 90.2% and by per-protocol analyses were 90.5% and 95.3% in the control and study groups, respectively, with no significant differences. Drug compliance was significantly better in the study group compared to the control group (p = 0.04). Overall, 44.7% of the patients in the study and 47.6% in the control groups had at least one adverse event. The most common adverse event was the dysgeusia in both the groups. The occurrence of diarrhea, nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the control group and that of arthralgia was higher in the study group. The presence of periodontal disease and drug compliance was independently associated with treatment failure. CONCLUSION: The use of single-dose PPI-based triple therapy improves drug compliance and eradication rate to standard PPI-based triple therapy. Presence of periodontal disease and drug compliance had negative influence on the eradication rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02711176 ᅟ ᅟ.

Effectiveness of two tinidazole regimens in treatment of bacterial vaginosis: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness at 21-30 days after treatment of tinidazole administered orally at 1 g once daily for 5 days and 2 g once daily for 2 days, compared with placebo, in the treatment of bacterial vaginosis, using rigorous U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended criteria to define cure. METHODS: A total of 235 women at 10 U.S. centers participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Presence or absence of all five following criteria was required to define diagnosis or cure of bacterial vaginosis: 1) clue cells were at least 20% of squamous cells in microscopic examination of vaginal fluid; 2) positive potassium hydroxide whiff test; 3) a homogeneous, thin, white-gray vaginal discharge; 4) vaginal pH greater than 4.5; and 5) Nugent score greater than or equal to 4 on Gram-stained vaginal fluid. Compliance, tolerability, and safety were assessed using patient diaries and interviews at 8-10 days and 21-30 days after treatment. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistical analysis with Bonferroni adjustment was used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Superior efficacy was demonstrated by tinidazole for the 1 g once daily for 5 days regimen (36.8% cured, P<.001, number needed to treat 3.2) and for the 2 g once daily for 2 days regimen (27.4% cured, P<.001, number needed to treat 4.5), when compared with placebo (5.1% cured) in the primary endpoint analysis. Using more traditional criteria for cure, efficacy was greater. Compliance with study therapy and tolerability were comparable in the three treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Both tinidazole regimens studied provided effective treatment for bacterial vaginosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00229216 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

A study of 4- and 7-day triple therapy with rabeprazole, high-dose levofloxacin and tinidazole rescue treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori treatment failure is becoming an emergent problem in clinical practice. Shorter treatment duration should improve compliance to therapy and keep an acceptable H. pylori eradication rate. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of two rabeprazole, high-dose levofloxacin and tinidazole-based regimens as 'rescue' treatment for H. pylori eradication in an open-label, randomized, pilot study carried out in a clinical practice setting. METHODS: Eighty-five consecutive patients who have previously failed at least one H. pylori eradication attempt were randomized to receive rabeprazole (20 mg, b.d.), levofloxacin (500 mg, b.d.) and tinidazole (500 mg, b.d.) either for 4 (4-day RLT, n = 42) or 7 days (7-day RLT, n = 43). Cure of H. pylori infection was assessed by means of 13C-urea breath test. RESULTS: The 7-day RLT achieved 84% (95% CI: 69-93%) and 86% (95% CI: 72-95%) eradication rates in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses respectively. The shorter treatment obtained an 83% (95% CI: 69-93%) eradication rate in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. Both regimens were well tolerated, although patients who received the 4-day RLT reported fewer side-effects. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have previously failed at least one H. pylori eradication attempt, both 4- and 7-day rabeprazole, high-dose levofloxacin, tinidazole-based regimens are effective in curing the infection in more than 80% of patients.

Moxifloxacin-based strategies for first-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection.

BACKGROUND: Standard anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy may not achieve a satisfactory eradication rate. Fluoroquinolones, such as moxifloxacin, are safe and promising agents for H. pylori eradication. AIM: To compare the efficacy of two 1-week moxifloxacin-based H. pylori eradication regimens with two standard treatments. METHODS: Three hundred and twenty H. pylori-positive subjects were randomized into four groups to receive: moxifloxacin, amoxicillin, esomeprazole (Group MAE); moxifloxacin, tinidazole and esomeprazole (Group MTE); standard triple therapies with clarithromycin, amoxicillin and esomeprazole (Group CAE) or tinidazole (Group CTE) for 7 days. H. pylori status was re-assessed 6 weeks after the end of therapy by 13C urea breath test. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty patients completed the efficacy analysis per protocol; H. pylori eradication rate in group MTE was 90% (72 of 80) and 92% (72 of 78), in group MAE was 88% (70 of 80) and 89%, (70 of 79) in Group CAE was 73% (58 of 80) and 78% (58 of 74), and in Group CTE was 75% (60 of 80) and 79% (60 of 76), respectively, in intention-to-treat and in per protocol analyses. Eradication rates of moxifloxacin-based triple therapies were significantly higher than that observed using standard triple schemes. The incidence of side effects was significantly lower in moxifloxacin groups than in control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Seven-day moxifloxacin-based triple therapies provide optimal eradication rates with a good compliance when compared with the standard triple therapy schemes.

[Clinical efficacy of a novel antimicrobial drug combination containing ciprofloxacin and tinidazole in the treatment of patients with skin and soft tissue infections].

Clinical and microbiological efficacies of a combined drug, a fixed combination of ciprofloxacin and tinidazole in the form of tablets (Cifran ST, Ranbaxy, India) were studied. The drug was given to 40 patients with skin and soft tissue infections in the complex surgical treatment. The clinical effect and bacteriological efficacy were observed in 97.5 and 75% of the cases respectively. The drug tolerability was good and no adverse reactions were stated.

Treatment of symptomatic intestinal amoebiasis with tinidazole.

Tinidazole was given in a single dose of 2g a day for 2 days to 17 adults, and in a single dose of 50mg/kg bodyweight daily for 3 days to 4 children, with symptomatic, but not severe, intestinal amoebiasis. All 21 patients showed clinical improvement but only 20 (95%) were parasitologically cured as evinced by failure to demonstrate Entamoeba histolytica in 3 stool samples collected on the 4th, 15th and 22nd day after treatment. Two subjects had mild nausea within a few hours of taking the first dose, while 8 had constipation of 3 to 5 days duration after treatment. 1 patient had nausea and constipation and another had palpitations.

Treatment of amoebic liver abscess with tinidazole and metronidazole.

20 patients with amoebic liver abscess, confirmed by aspiration of typical amoebic 'pus', were treated in random order with either tinidazole or metronidazole in a dose of 2g once daily for 2 days. Clinical, radiological, and biochemical follow-up was done for 1 month. One patient, given metronidazole, absconded and 19 completed the trial. Complete recovery occurred in all 10 patients given tinidazole but in only 5 of the 9 given metronidazole (p = 0.05). Patients on tinidazole required repeat aspirations less frequently than those on metronidazole. Mild gastrointestinal side-effects occurred in 1 patient on metronidazole but in none on tinidazole. From the present study, tinidazole appears to be a more effective, better tolerated drug with a more rapid therapeutic effect than metronidazole.

Tinidazole and metronidazole in hepatic amoebiasis.

The efficacy of metronidazole and tinidazole has been compared in 31 patients with hepatic amoebiasis. Only those with unequivocal clinical, radiological and laboratory evidence of hepatic amoebiasis were included; diagnostic and therapeutic aspiration was performed where necessary. 15 patients received metronidazole and 16 tinidazole, in random order. The 2 groups were comparable. Both drugs were given orally in a single daily dose of 2g for a minimum of 3 days, with treatment extended if considered clinically advisable. 12 of 15 patients (80%) were cured with metronidazole given for an average period of 7 days (range 4 to 14 days). 15 of 16 patients (93.8%) given tinidazole were cured and the mean duration of treatment was 4 days (range 3 to 6 days). There were fewer side-effects with tinidazole. In this study of hepatic amoebiasis in Bangladesh, tinidazole was found to be superior to metronidazole in overall efficacy because a shorter course of treatment was necessary and it caused fewer side-effects.