Helicobacter pylori eradication following first-line treatment failure in Europe: What, how and when chose among different standard regimens? A systematic review

Abstract

Cure rate following standard first-line regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication is decreasing so several patients require two or more treatments. Antibiotic susceptibility-based therapy, advised in current guidelines, is largely impracticable in clinical practice. Some 'standard' regimens (triple therapies based on either levofloxacin or rifabutin, bismuth-based quadruple therapies, sequential, concomitant and hybrid therapies) were empirically used as rescue therapies. We performed a systematic review on recent studies carried out in European countries dealing with these regimens. A total of 24 studies, with 3804 patients, were identified. As second-line therapy, Pylera (89.2%) and sequential therapy (92.5%) achieved significantly higher cure rates as compared to all the other regimens. As third-line therapy, levofloxacin-based therapy (84.1%) and Pylera (83.6%) achieved similarly high cure rates, whereas standard, bismuth-based quadruple therapy (64.1%) achieved the lowest. As a rescue therapy, the success rate was close to 75% following all therapies used, with data on rifabutin-based regimen consolidated in the larger sample size. Overall, levofloxacin-amoxicillin triple therapy achieved higher eradication rates when the 14- rather than 10-day regimen was used (87.1 vs. 72.2%; P = 0.003). Among bismuth-based therapies, Pylera achieved a significantly higher eradication rate than standard quadruple therapy (88 vs. 67%; P < 0.0001). These data suggest that a wise 'therapeutic package' following first-line therapy could be Pylera, levofloxacin- and rifabutin-based therapy, as long as Pylera therapy was not used as a first-line regimen and levofloxacin-based regimen was administered for 14 days.