ObjectiveThe best approach for Helicobacter pylori management remains unclear. An audit process is essential to ensure clinical practice is aligned with best standards of care.DesignInternational multicentre prospective non-interventional registry starting in 2013 aimed to evaluate the decisions and outcomes in H. pylori management by European gastroenterologists. Patients were registered in an e-CRF by AEG-REDCap. Variables included demographics, previous eradication attempts, prescribed treatment, adverse events and outcomes. Data monitoring was performed to ensure data quality. Time-trend and geographical analyses were performed.Results30 394 patients from 27 European countries were evaluated and 21 533 (78%) first-line empirical H. pylori treatments were included for analysis. Pretreatment resistance rates were 23% to clarithromycin, 32% to metronidazole and 13% to both. Triple therapy with amoxicillin and clarithromycin was most commonly prescribed (39%), achieving 81.5% modified intention-to-treat eradication rate. Over 90% eradication was obtained only with 10-day bismuth quadruple or 14-day concomitant treatments. Longer treatment duration, higher acid inhibition and compliance were associated with higher eradication rates. Time-trend analysis showed a region-dependent shift in prescriptions including abandoning triple therapies, using higher acid-inhibition and longer treatments, which was associated with an overall effectiveness increase (84%–90%).ConclusionManagement of H. pylori infection by European gastroenterologists is heterogeneous, suboptimal and discrepant with current recommendations. Only quadruple therapies lasting at least 10 days are able to achieve over 90% eradication rates. European recommendations are being slowly and heterogeneously incorporated into routine clinical practice, which was associated with a corresponding increase in effectiveness.
Helicobacter pylori is specifically adapted to colonize the mucus layer covering the gastric mucosa, with little invasion of the gastric glands. 1,2 It is the major cause For editorial comment see p 1939.
BackgroundSurveillance of premalignant gastric lesions relies mainly on random biopsy sampling. Narrow band imaging (NBI) may enhance the accuracy of endoscopic surveillance of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and dysplasia. We aimed to compare the yield of NBI to white light endoscopy (WLE) in the surveillance of patients with IM and dysplasia.MethodsPatients with previously identified gastric IM or dysplasia underwent a surveillance endoscopy. Both WLE and NBI were performed in all patients during a single procedure. The sensitivity of WLE and NBI for the detection of premalignant lesions was calculated by correlating endoscopic findings to histological diagnosis.ResultsForty-three patients (28 males and 15 females, mean age 59 years) were included. IM was diagnosed in 27 patients; 20 were detected by NBI and WLE, four solely by NBI and three by random biopsies only. Dysplasia was detected in seven patients by WLE and NBI and in two patients by random biopsies only. Sixty-eight endoscopically detected lesions contained IM: 47 were detected by WLE and NBI, 21 by NBI only. Nine endoscopically detected lesions demonstrated dysplasia: eight were detected by WLE and NBI, one was detected by NBI only. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for detection of premalignant lesions were 71, 58, 65 and 65% for NBI and 51, 67, 62 and 55% for WLE, respectively.ConclusionsNBI increases the diagnostic yield for detection of advanced premalignant gastric lesions compared to routine WLE.
In a low gastric cancer incidence area, a surveillance programme can detect gastric cancer at an early curable stage with an overall risk of neoplastic progression of 0.3% per year. Use of serological markers in endoscopic surveillance programmes may improve risk stratification.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization 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 and 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.