Clinical trial: seven-day vonoprazan- versus 14-day proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication.

BACKGROUND: One-week triple therapy with vonoprazan is endorsed by Japanese guidelines as an alternative to proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication. This contrasts with Western guidelines recommending 2-week PPI-based triple therapy. AIM: To verify the non-inferiority of 1-week vonoprazan-based triple therapy versus 2-week PPI-based triple therapy as first-line H. pylori eradication in a multiracial Asian cohort. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial of treatment-naïve patients with H. pylori infection assigned 1:1 to either 7 days amoxicillin 1 g + clarithromycin 500 mg + vonoprazan 20 mg twice per day or 14 days amoxicillin 1 g + clarithromycin 500 mg + omeprazole OR esomeprazole OR rabeprazole 20 mg twice/day. Subjects were randomly assigned to each PPI 1:1:1 Demographics, H. pylori resistance, CYP 2C19 genotype, eradication success and safety profiles were compared between groups. RESULTS: Between June 2019 and June 2021, 252 of 1097 subjects screened were randomised. 244 (age [SD] 51.7 [14.6]) received vonoprazan- (n = 119) or PPI-based (n = 125) triple therapy. Eradication rates by intention-to-treat analysis were 87.4% (vonoprazan-based triple therapy) versus 88.0% (PPI-based triple therapy. By per protocol analysis: 96.3% (vonoprazan-based triple therapy) versus 94.0% (PPI-based triple therapy). Clarithromycin resistance predicted treatment failure on multivariate analysis: RR 11.4; 95% CI [1.4-96.3], p = 0.025. No significant differences in CYP 2C19 genotypes or adverse events occurred between groups. CONCLUSION: One-week vonoprazan-based triple therapy achieved comparable efficacy to 2-week PPI-based triple therapy and was well tolerated.

TC-325 versus the conventional combined technique for endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers with high-risk bleeding stigmata: A randomized pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Preliminary studies on a new topical hemostatic agent, TC-325, have shown its safety and effectiveness in treating active upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, to date there have been no randomized trials comparing TC-325 with the conventional combined technique (CCT). Our pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TC-325 with those of CCT in treating peptic ulcers with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata. METHODS: This was a comparative randomized study of patients with upper GI bleeding who had Forrest class I, IIA or IIB ulcers. RESULTS: Altogether 20 patients with a mean age of 70 years (range 23-87 years) were recruited, including 16 men, with a mean hemoglobin of 97 g/L. Initial hemostasis was successful in 19 (95.0%) patients, including 90.0% (9/10) in the TC-325 group and 100% (10/10) in the CCT group. TC-325 monotherapy failed to stop bleeding in a patient with Forrest IB posterior duodenal wall ulcer. Rebleeding was seen in 33.3% (3/9) of the patients in the TC-325 group and 10.0% (1/10) in the CCT group. One patient required angio-embolization therapy while three had successful conventional endotherapy. Two patients from the TC-325 group had serious adverse events that were not procedure- or therapy-related. In patients with Forrest IIA or IIB ulcers, five received TC-325 monotherapy; none had rebleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study showed that TC-325 has a tendency towards a higher rebleeding rate than CCT, when treating actively bleeding ulcers. Larger trials are necessary for definitive results.