The high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori and the variety of gastroduodenal diseases caused by this pathogen necessitate the use of only accurate methods both for the primary diagnosis and for monitoring the eradication effectiveness. There is a broad spectrum of diagnostic methods available for detecting H. pylori. All methods can be classified as invasive or non-invasive. The need for upper endoscopy, different clinical circumstances, sensitivity and specificity, and accessibility defines the method chosen. This article reviews the advantages and disadvantages of the current options and novel developments in diagnostic tests for H. pylori detection. The progress in endoscopic modalities has made it possible not only to diagnose precancerous lesions and early gastric cancer but also to predict H. pylori infection in real time. The contribution of novel endoscopic evaluation technologies in the diagnosis of H. pylori such as visual endoscopy using blue laser imaging (BLI), linked color imaging (LCI), and magnifying endoscopy is discussed. Recent studies have demonstrated the capability of artificial intelligence to predict H. pylori status based on endoscopic images. Non-invasive diagnostic tests such as the urea breathing test and stool antigen test are recommended for primary diagnosis of H. pylori infection. Serology can be used for initial screening and epidemiological studies. The histology showed its value in detecting H. pylori and provided more information about the degree of gastric mucosa inflammation and precancerous lesions. Molecular methods are mainly used in detecting antibiotic resistance of H. pylori. Cultures from gastric biopsies are the gold standard and recommended for antibiotic susceptibility tests.
Brglez Jurecic 14 | José María Huguet 15 | Noelia Alcaide 16 | Irina Voynovan 17 | José María Botargues Bote 18 | Inés Modolell 19 | Jorge Pérez Lasala 20 | Inés Ariño 21 | Laimas Jonaitis 22 | Manuel Dominguez-Cajal 23 | György Buzas 24 | Frode Lerang 25 | Monica Perona 26 | Dmitry Bordin 17 | Toni Axon 27 | Antonio Gasbarrini 28 | Ricardo Marcos Pinto 29 | Yaron Niv 30 | Limas Kupcinskas 22 | Ante Tonkic 31 | Marcis Leja 32 | Theodore Rokkas 33 | Lyudmila Boyanova 34 | Oleg Shvets 35 | Marino Venerito 36 | Peter Bytzer 37 | Adrian Goldis 38 | Ilkay Simsek 39 | Vincent Lamy 40 | Krzysztof Przytulski 41 | Lumír Kunovský 42 | Lisette Capelle 43 | Tomica Milosavljevic 44 | María Caldas 1 | Ana Garre 1 | Francis Mégraud 45 | Colm O'Morain 46 | Javier P. Gisbert 1 | On behalf of the Hp-EuReg Investigators Abstract Background: Experience in Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment of patients allergic to penicillin is very scarce. A triple combination with a PPI, clarithromycin (C), and metronidazole (M) is often prescribed as the first option, although more recently the use of a quadruple therapy with PPI, bismuth (B), tetracycline (T), and M has been recommended. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line and rescue treatments in patients allergic to penicillin in the "European Registry of H pylori management" (Hp-EuReg). Methods: A systematic prospective registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists (27 countries, 300 investigators) on the management of H pylori infection. An e-CRF was created on AEG-REDCap. Patients with penicillin allergy were analyzed until June 2019. Results: One-thousand eighty-four patients allergic to penicillin were analyzed. The Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section. How to cite this article: Nyssen OP, Perez-Aisa Á, Tepes B, et al; On behalf of the Hp-EuReg Investigators. Helicobacter pylori first-line and rescue treatments in patients allergic to penicillin: Experience from the European Registry on H pylori management (Hp-EuReg). Helicobacter. 2020;25:e12686.
The multicenter prospective observational study initiated by the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) is conducted in 27 countries in Europe. The data from the Russian part of the European registry for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection (European Registry on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection, protocol: “Hp-EuReg”) allows us to analyze the real clinical practice of diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori and compare it with international recommendations. Materials and methods. A comparative analysis of the data entered in the register by the Russian research centers “Hp-EuReg”, in the period from 2013 to 2018, was conducted. Results and discussion. Invasive diagnostic methods prevail for the primary diagnosis of H. pylori [histology - 20.3% (in 2013 year) - 43.9% (in 2018 year), rapid urease test - 31.7% and 47.8% respectively]. The most popular mode of eradication therapy is a 10-day triple therapy (62.8-76.2%), the effectiveness of which does not exceed 79% (per protocol). Invasive tests (histology) are the leading method for control the effectiveness of therapy, however, there is a tendency towards a wider use of non-invasive methods (H. pylori stool antigen - from 17% in 2013 to 29.3% in 2018 and urea breath test from 6.9 to 18.3%, respectively). Serological test to control the effectiveness of eradication is still used from 8.2% (2013) to 6.1% (2018). Eradication therapy was not performed in 28% of patients throughout the entire observation period. Conclusion. In Russia, despite approved domestic and international recommendations, deviations in clinical practice persist, both during eradication therapy and in monitoring the effectiveness of eradication therapy.
Diagnostic tests used to detection Helicobacter pylori are divided into invasive (requiring endoscopy) and non-invasive, direct (bacteriological, histological or molecular detection of the bacterium) and indirect (detection of urease activity of the bacterium or antibodies to it). The choice of the test is determined by the clinical situation, as well as by its availability and cost. The sensitivity of most tests is affected by the use of antisecretory drugs and antibiotics.
Continuous evaluation of the actual clinical practice of diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori is crucial in order to provide the best standard of care and to compare health outcomes with expert recommendations.
Aim:to evaluate the effectiveness of the standard triple therapy (amoxicillin, clarithromycin, a proton pump inhibitor) and the standard triple therapy plus bismuth tripotassium dicitrate.
Materials and methods.Observational, prospective, multicenter study, carried out in one single Russian centre A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center as part of the Hp-EuReg. Patients were included from 2013 to November 2019 by Russian gastroenterologists.
Results.A total of 647 patients were collected and 330 were administered either standard triple therapy ((amoxicillin, clarithromycin, a proton pump inhibitor) or standard triple therapy plus bismuth tripotassium dicitrate. Invasive methods is dominates in the initial diagnosis of H. pylori: the frequency of use of the quick urease test decreased from 50% in 2013 to 31% in 2019. Serology was used in 27.9%. There has been an increase in the use of the13C-urea breath test from 13% in 2013 to 31% in 2019. The histological method (7.5%) and the stool antigen test (3.2%) were used less frequently. For eradication control non-invasive methods are mostly used:13C-UDT (82.7%) and the stool antigen test (14.4%). The effectiveness of standard triple therapy (mITT) was 68% with a 7-day course, 79% with a 10-day course, and 70% with a 14-day course. Combination of bismuth and standard triple therapy eradicates H. pylori (mITT) in 63%, 75% and 89%, respectively.
Conclusion.An improvement in the clinical practice of managing patients with H. pylori infections has been noted. The standard triple therapy in combination with bismuth tripotassium dicitrate, prescribed for 14 days, is more effective.
scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.