Comparison of vonoprazan bismuth-containing triple therapy with quadruple therapy in Helicobacter pylori-infected treatment-naive patients: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Helicobacter pylori infection is linked to various gastrointestinal conditions, such as chronic active gastritis, peptic ulcers, and gastric cancer. Traditional treatment options encounter difficulties due to antibiotic resistance and adverse effects. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of a new treatment plan that combines vonoprazan (VPZ), amoxicillin, and bismuth for the eradication of H. pylori. METHODS: A total of 600 patients infected with H. pylori were recruited for this multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients treated for H. pylori elimination were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive 14 days of vonoprazan-based triple therapy (vonoprazan + amoxicillin + bismuth, group A) or standard quadruple therapy (esomeprazole + clarithromycin + amoxicillin + bismuth, group B). Compliance and adverse effects were tracked through daily medication and side effect records. All patients underwent a 13C/14C-urea breath test 4 weeks after treatment completion. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses revealed no substantial differences in H. pylori eradication rates between groups A and B (ITT: 83.7% vs 83.2%; PP: 90.9% vs 89.7%). However, significant differences were observed in the assessment of side effects (13.7% vs 28.6%, P < 0.001). Specifically, group A had significantly fewer "bitter mouths" than group B did (3.7% vs 16.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Triple therapy comprising vonoprazan (20 mg), amoxicillin (750 mg), and bismuth potassium citrate (220 mg) achieved a PP eradication rate ≥90%, paralleling standard quadruple therapy, and had fewer adverse events and lower costs (¥306.8 vs ¥645.8) for treatment-naive patients.

Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal sampling techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain unclear and have not been standardized. The aim of this study was to compare the wet-suction and dry-suction techniques for sampling solid lesions in the pancreas, mediastinum, and abdomen. METHODS: This was a multicenter, crossover, randomized controlled trial with randomized order of sampling techniques. The 296 consecutive patients underwent EUS-FNA with 22G needles and were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into two separate groups that received the dry-suction and wet-suction techniques in a different order. The primary outcome was to compare the histological diagnostic accuracy of dry suction and wet suction for malignancy. The secondary outcomes were to compare the cytological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality. RESULTS: Among the 269 patients with pancreatic (n = 161) and non-pancreatic (n = 108) lesions analyzed, the wet-suction technique had a significantly better histological diagnostic accuracy (84.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 79.9 % - 89.0 %] vs. 73.2 % [95 %CI 67.1 % - 78.7 %]; P = 0.001), higher specimen adequacy (94.8 % vs. 78.8 %; P < 0.001), and less blood contamination (P < 0.001) than the dry-suction technique. In addition, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of wet suction provided a histological diagnostic accuracy of 91.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: The wet-suction technique in EUS-FNA generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry-suction technique. Furthermore, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of EUS-FNA with wet suction may provide a definitive histological diagnosis when rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely available.