RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent guidelines dictate that all Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infected subjects should receive curative therapy. The efficacy of empirical regimens for H. pylori eradication might decline with bacterial, drug, and host factors. The necessity of a tailored therapy still remains controversial. Here we provide a meta-analysis of the current status of susceptibility-based (tailored) therapy in which susceptibility-based therapies were compared to the currently accepted choice of empiric therapy. In this rapidly closing era, neither the susceptibility nor empiric therapies were routinely optimized, such that we report the outcome of comparisons on the efficacy of unoptimized tailored vs. locally preferred empiric treatments. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases were searched using suitable keywords. Individual and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the fixed- or random-effects model as appropriate. Heterogeneity was calculated employing the Cochrane Q test and I2 values, whereas the possibility of publication bias was examined by constructing funnel plots. Additionally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included with a total of 9613 patients. Tailored therapy proved superior to empiric treatment [OR 2.07 (95% CI 1.53-2.79)]. However, tailored therapy achieved eradication rates >90% in only 15 (44%) studies and >95% in only 6 (17.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although tailored therapy performed better than empiric treatment, the lack of optimization of therapies failed to reliably achieve high cure rates (>90%). These results emphasize that H. pylori infection, like other infectious diseases, should utilize the principles of antimicrobial stewardship in relation to treatment guidance.