Helicobacter pylori resistance to antibiotics before and after treatment: Incidence of eradication failure.

BACKGROUND: Increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance especially to clarithromycin and metronidazole has been observed in Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). AIM: To characterize the antimicrobial resistance pattern of H. pylori before and after treatment in a cohort of patients accumulated over a period of 15 years after an unsuccessful eradication treatment had been given comparing sensitivity data from patients with newly diagnosed H. pylori infection. A specific objective was to look for resistance to levofloxacin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Total of 50 patients newly diagnosed for H. pylori infection treated with omeprazole and amoxicillin/clarithromycin and 42 H pylori treatment-resistant patients treated with omeprazole and amoxicillin/levofloxacin were enrolled in this study. Cultures including antibiotic sensitivity testing were conducted according to standard laboratory routines and thus also in keeping with a European study protocol using E-test gradient strips or disc diffusion methods. RESULTS: Clarithromycin resistance was more frequently observed in the H. pylori resistant group than in newly diagnosed H. pylori group (39% versus 11%). Regarding metronidazole the distribution was 70% versus 38%, and 8% versus 12% were resistant to tetracycline. No resistance was observed for amoxicillin. After re-treatment of patients belonging to the H. pylori treatment-resistant group, just two patient strains were recovered of which one harbored metronidazole resistance. In the group of newly diagnosed H. pylori, seven patients were culture positive by control after treatment. Two and three patient strains showing resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole, respectively. None of the strains in our material was classified as resistant to amoxicillin and levofloxacin. Whereas 12% was resistant to tetracycline in the newly diagnosed before treatment. CONCLUSION: Clarithromycin resistance was more frequent in the H. pylori treatment-resistant group than strains from patients with newly diagnosed H. pylori infection. No resistance was observed to amoxicillin and levofloxacin. In such cases Therefore levofloxacin may be used provided in vitro sensitivity testing confirms applicability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05019586.

Clinical characterization of Helicobacter pylori infected patients 15 years after unsuccessful eradication.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients that have failed therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection are incompletely characterized. The aim of this study was to characterize a H. pylori treatment resistant cohort compared to the cohorts of newly diagnosed, earlier eradicated and non-infected. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were selected from routine referrals to the Endoscopy units at three different Norwegian hospitals. In all four cohorts, gastric biopsies were scored according to the Sydney classification, and symptoms according to the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale score, including sub-scores for upper gastrointestinal symptoms and functional bowel symptoms. Patients in the H. pylori resistant group were treated with a triple therapy regimen that consisted of levofloxacin, amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor. RESULTS: We included 185 patients, 42 H. pylori treatment resistant, 50 newly diagnosed, 61 previously H. pylori eradicated and 32 never infected. The treatment-resistant cohort had higher scores for upper gastrointestinal symptoms and functional bowel symptoms compared to the other groups except for the group being never H. pylori infected. The H. pylori resistant patients had lower Sydney scores than patients with newly diagnosed H. pylori infection. The triple combination showed a high efficacy of 91% to eradicate H. pylori. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with treatment-resistant H. pylori infection had more gastrointestinal symptoms, but a lower Sydney score than patients with newly diagnosed infection. A treatment regimen including levofloxacin showed a high efficacy in eradicating H. pylori in patients that previously had failed eradication treatment.

Registration bias in a clinical quality register.

Background and aims The quality of medical quality registers is poorly defined and lack of trust in data due to low completeness may be a major barrier against their use in quality improvement interventions. The aim of the current observational study was to explore how selective reporting may influence adverse events registered in the Norwegian quality register for colonoscopy (Gastronet). Materials and methods Gastronet's database includes data provided by endoscopists, nurses and patients. All outpatient colonoscopies reported to Gastronet in 2015 were included and compared to the total number of colonoscopies performed in Norway as retrieved from the National Patient Registry. Hospitals were categorized into four groups according to reporting completeness < 50 %, 50 % to 69 %, 70 % to 89 % and ≥ 90 %. The number of recorded adverse events (AEs) and procedure time were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to explore independent factors for selection bias. Results A total of 22,364 colonoscopies were reported to the National Patient Register of which 15,855 (71 %) were registered in Gastronet. Feedback was received from 11,079 patients (50 %). The frequency of AEs increased from 0.6 % in completeness group < 50 % to 1.6 % in completeness group ≥ 90 % ( P  < 0.001). Long colonoscopy procedure time was associated with low reporting completeness. Patient feedback was associated with older age, cecal intubation success and sedation-free colonoscopy. Conclusion Incomplete registration in a colonoscopy quality register is associated with underreporting of AEs. Longer procedure time, a surrogate marker for time constraint, is associated with low completeness.

Patient-reported adverse events after colonoscopy in Norway.

Background and aims Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important in healthcare. European guidelines have recommended inclusion of patient feedback to capture adverse events due to colonoscopy, but this is rarely implemented. Methods The Norwegian Quality Assurance network for endoscopy (Gastronet) collects patient-reported outcome for colonoscopies. Free-text comments on patient reports from January to December 2015 were characterized as positive or negative. All negative free-text comments were scrutinized for information that might suggest colonoscopy-related adverse events. We identified severe adverse events with and without admission to hospital. Results We included 16 552 outpatient colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals. A total of 11 248 procedures (68 %) were accompanied by a patient feedback report, of which 2628 (23 %) had free-text comments (2196 [20 %] characterized as positive and 432 [3.8 %] as negative). These negative free texts on patient reports revealed 15 post-colonoscopy hospital admissions due to adverse events that had not been registered in the colonoscopy report. This increased the number of hospital admissions caused by adverse events from 3 (0.03 %) to 18 (0.16 %). In addition, there were 14 patient reports of severe events without hospital admission. Therefore, a total of 29 severe adverse events reported by patients were missed by conventional documentation in the colonoscopy form. Conclusion It is feasible to implement patient feedback as routine reporting to capture the full picture of colonoscopy-related adverse events. Some patients experience significant complications that are not recorded through any registries. Patient feedback forms should be tailored to capture adverse events after colonoscopy that are otherwise not easily disclosed.

First quality score for referral letters in gastroenterology-a validation study.

OBJECTIVE: To create and validate an objective and reliable score to assess referral quality in gastroenterology. DESIGN: An observational multicentre study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 25 gastroenterologists participated in selecting variables for a Thirty Point Score (TPS) for quality assessment of referrals to gastroenterology specialist healthcare for 9 common indications. From May to September 2014, 7 hospitals from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority participated in collecting and scoring 327 referrals to a gastroenterologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Correlation between the TPS and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for referral quality. RESULTS: The 327 referrals had an average TPS of 13.2 (range 1-25) and an average VAS of 4.7 (range 0.2-9.5). The reliability of the score was excellent, with an intra-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.87 and inter-rater ICC of 0.91. The overall correlation between the TPS and the VAS was moderate (r=0.42), and ranged from fair to substantial for the various indications. Mean agreement was good (ICC=0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 0.57)), ranging from poor to good. CONCLUSIONS: The TPS is reliable, objective and shows good agreement with the subjective VAS. The score may be a useful tool for assessing referral quality in gastroenterology, particularly important when evaluating the effect of interventions to improve referral quality.

The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres.

OBJECTIVE: The burden on colonoscopy capacity is considerable and expected to increase further as colorectal cancer screening programmes gain a foothold in Europe. In this situation, it is particularly important to evaluate the quality of the service given. In this article we present our first year of experience with a quality network of endoscopy centres in Norway (Gastronet). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire focusing on caecal intubation rate and pain was completed by the endoscopist (on site) and patient (on the day after the examination). Fourteen centres participated with registration of 7370 colonoscopies by 73 endoscopists. RESULTS: There was 100% endoscopist participation, 87% coverage of colonoscopies and an estimated 76% questionnaire coverage of the patient population. Overall caecal intubation rate was 91%, range 83% to 97% between centres (p < 0.001). Patients reporting severe pain during colonoscopy differed from 2 to 24% between centres (p < 0.001). Variations could only partly be explained by differences in procedure practice (sedation, CO2 insufflation). For individual endoscopists, improvement after feedback on performance was restricted to the group of endoscopists having contributed with only 50-99 registered colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: In quality assurance programmes we recommend a limited number of variables for registration in order to secure high compliance by endoscopists and patients. One year of experience with Gastronet disclosed a satisfactory overall caecal intubation rate, but considerable variation between centres in practice and ability to offer painless colonoscopy. This suggests a need for formal, centralized training of colonoscopists or the development of quality standards for colonoscopy training and practice.