A randomized superiority clinical trial: metronidazole improved the efficacy of high-dose dual therapy in Helicobacter pylori rescue treatment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: High-dose dual therapy [proton pump inhibitor (PPI) + amoxicillin] is recommended as a Helicobacter pylori rescue treatment. However, its efficacy is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy containing high dose of PPI and amoxicillin plus metronidazole compared with dual therapy in rescue treatment. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-eight patients who failed at least two courses of H. pylori treatment were recruited and randomly allocated into two 14-day groups: esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily and amoxicillin 1000 mg three times daily plus metronidazole 400 mg three times daily (EAM group); or esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily and amoxicillin 1000 mg three times daily (EA group). The agar-dilution method was performed as an antibiotic susceptibility test. The 13C urea breath test was used to assess H. pylori eradication at 6 weeks after the treatment. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04024527). RESULTS: H. pylori eradication rates in the EAM group were 85.8% (115/134, 95% CI 79.9%-91.7%) in ITT analysis and 92.6% (113/122, 95% CI 87.9%-97.3%) in PP analysis, significantly higher than those of the EA group, which were 73.1% (98/134, 95% CI 65.6%-80.6%) and 83.1% (98/118, 95% CI 76.8%-89.8%) (P = 0.005, 0.011). Resistance rates of amoxicillin and metronidazole were 6.6% (13/196) and 89.8% (176/196). Metronidazole resistance did not affect the eradication rates in the EAM group. Both groups had similar moderate and severe adverse events and similar compliance. CONCLUSIONS: A triple therapy containing high dose of PPI and amoxicillin plus metronidazole could be a potential rescue therapy worldwide even in a high metronidazole-resistance region.

The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in inflammatory bowel disease in China: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection remains high in China though the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has increased. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between the prevalence of H. pylori and inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: Hospitalized IBD patients including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) who had tested H. pylori antibody were enrolled. Controls were chose from age- and sex- matched healthy physical examination people who had H. pylori antibody test in a 1:2 fashion (IBD patients:controls). IBD medical history was recorded. All patients were typed by the Montreal classification. Mayo Clinic score and the Harvey-Bradshaw Severity Index were used to evaluate their disease activity. Patients and controls that had H. pylori eradication therapy before were excluded. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty IBD patients including 213 CD patients and 47 UC patients, and 520 controls were involved in this study. The prevalence of H. pylori infection in IBD patients (9.6%, 25/260) and IBD newly diagnosed patients (12.1%, 8/66), as well as CD patients (8.9%, 19/213) including CD newly diagnosed patients (10.6%, 5/47) and UC patients (12.8%, 6/47) was significantly lower than controls (29.8%, 155/520) (p = 2.796*10-10, 0.007, 5.723*10-9, 0.016, 0.014), while there was no statistically difference between UC newly diagnosed patients and the controls, and IBD patients with different disease type, disease activity and treatment history. CONCLUSIONS: H. pylori infection had a negative association with IBD, especially CD.

To drain or not to drain in colorectal anastomosis: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, many surgeons place a prophylactic drain in the abdominal or pelvic cavity after colorectal anastomosis as a conventional treatment. However, some trials have demonstrated that this procedure may not be beneficial to the patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prophylactic placement of a drain in colorectal anastomosis can reduce postoperative complications. METHODS: We systematically searched all the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine use of drainage to non-drainage regimes after colorectal anastomosis, using the terms "colorectal" or "colon/colonic" or "rectum/rectal" and "anastomo*" and "drain or drainage." Reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Primary outcome measures were clinical and radiological anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, wound infection, re-operation, and respiratory complications. We assessed the eligible studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two authors independently extracted data. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs were included (1803 patients in total, 939 patients in the drain group and 864 patients in the no drain group). Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant differences between the drain group and the no drain group in (1) overall anastomotic leakage (relative risk (RR) = 1.14, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.62, P = 0.47), (2) clinical anastomotic leakage (RR = 1.39, 95 % CI 0.80-2.39, P = 0.24), (3) radiologic anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.56-1.51, P = 0.74), (4) mortality (RR = 0.94, 95 % CI 0.57-1.55, P = 0.81), (5) wound infection (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI 0.84-1.69, P = 0.34), (6) re-operation (RR = 1.18, 95 % CI 0.75-1.85, P = 0.47), and (7) respiratory complications (RR = 0.82, 95 % CI 0.55-1.23, P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of prophylactic drainage in colorectal anastomosis does not benefit in decreasing postoperative complications.