The Asia-Pacific Consensus Conference was convened to review and synthesize the most current information on Helicobacter pylori management so as to update the previously published regional guidelines. The group recognized that in addition to long-established indications, such as peptic ulcer disease, early mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) type lymphoma and family history of gastric cancer, H. pylori eradication was also indicated for H. pylori infected patients with functional dyspepsia, in those receiving long-term maintenance proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for gastroesophageal reflux disease, and in cases of unexplained iron deficiency anemia or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. In addition, a population 'test and treat'strategy for H. pylori infection in communities with high incidence of gastric cancer was considered to be an effective strategy for gastric cancer prevention. It was recommended that H. pylori infection should be tested for and eradicated prior to long-term aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy in patients at high risk for ulcers and ulcer-related complications. In Asia, the currently recommended first-line therapy for H. pylori infection is PPI-based triple therapy with amoxicillin/metronidazole and clarithromycin for 7 days, while bismuth-based quadruple therapy is an effective alternative. There appears to be an increasing rate of resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole in parts of Asia, leading to reduced efficacy of PPI-based triple therapy. There are insufficient data to recommend sequential therapy as an alternative first-line therapy in Asia. Salvage therapies that can be used include: (i) standard triple therapy that has not been previously used; (ii) bismuth-based quadruple therapy; (iii) levofloxacin-based triple therapy; and (iv) rifabutin-based triple therapy. Both CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms and cigarette smoking can influence future H. pylori eradication rates. Key wordshelicobacter pylori:diagnosis, helicobacter pylori:treatment and antimicrobial resistance, H. pylori and gastric cancer.

No abstract

No abstract

Further studies are needed to clarify the role of newer diagnostic modalities and endoscopic therapy. Diagnostic strategies for GERD in Asia must consider coexistent gastric cancer and peptic ulcer. PPIs remain the cornerstone of therapy.

Over a third of patients considered IBD medication harmful to unborn children. Fear of infertility and concerns about inheritance may explain high rates of voluntary childlessness. Attitudes contrary to medical evidence were associated with significantly lower knowledge. Young women with IBD, particularly those with poor knowledge, should be offered education and counselling about pregnancy-related issues.

SUMMARYAim: To assess the efficacy of the 8-week therapy with esomeprazole 40 mg vs. pantoprazole 40 mg for healing erosive oesophagitis (EE) as part of a management study. Methods: Patients had a history of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms ( ‡6 months) and had suffered heartburn on at least 4 of the 7 days preceding enrolment. Endoscopies were performed to grade EE severity using the Los Angeles (LA) classification system at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks (if unhealed at 4 weeks). Heartburn severity was recorded by patients on diary cards. The primary end point was healing of EE by week 8 of treatment.Results: Of 3170 patients randomized, the intentto-treat population consisted of 3151 patients (63% male, mean age: 50.6 years, 27% Helicobacter pyloripositive). Esomeprazole 40 mg healed a significantly greater proportion of EE patients than pantoprazole 40 mg at both 4 weeks (life table estimates: esomeprazole 81%, pantoprazole 75%, P < 0.001) and 8 weeks (life table estimates: esomeprazole 96%, pantoprazole 92%, P < 0.001). The median time to reach sustained heartburn resolution was 6 days in patients receiving esomeprazole and 8 days with pantoprazole (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Esomeprazole 40 mg is more effective than pantoprazole 40 mg for healing EE and providing resolution of associated heartburn.

ObjectiveTo determine whether once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg or 20 mg compared with placebo reduces the incidence of peptic ulcers over 26 weeks of treatment in patients taking low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and who are at risk for ulcer development.DesignMultinational, randomised, blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial.SettingCardiology, primary care and gastroenterology centres (n=240).PatientsHelicobacter pylori-negative patients taking daily low-dose ASA (75–325 mg), who fulfilled one or more of the following criteria: age ≥18 years with history of uncomplicated peptic ulcer; age ≥60 years with either stable coronary artery disease, upper gastrointestinal symptoms and five or more gastric/duodenal erosions, or low-dose ASA treatment initiated within 1 month of randomisation; or age ≥65 years. All patients were ulcer-free at study entry.InterventionsOnce-daily, blinded treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg, 20 mg or placebo for 26 weeks.Main outcome measuresThe primary end point was the occurrence of endoscopy-confirmed peptic ulcer over 26 weeks.ResultsA total of 2426 patients (52% men; mean age 68 years) were randomised. After 26 weeks, esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg significantly reduced the cumulative proportion of patients developing peptic ulcers; 1.5% of esomeprazole 40 mg and 1.1% of esomeprazole 20 mg recipients, compared with 7.4% of placebo recipients, developed peptic ulcers (both p<0.0001 vs placebo). Esomeprazole was generally well tolerated.ConclusionsAcid-suppressive treatment with once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg or 20 mg reduces the occurrence of peptic ulcers in patients at risk for ulcer development who are taking low-dose ASA.Clinical trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00441727.

BackgroundBowel symptoms are often considered an indication to perform colonoscopy to identify or rule out colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps. Investigation of bowel symptoms for this purpose is recommended by numerous clinical guidelines. However, the evidence for this practice is unclear. The objective of this study is to systematically review the evidence about the association between bowel symptoms and colorectal cancer or polyps.MethodsWe searched the literature extensively up to December 2008, using MEDLINE and EMBASE and following references. For inclusion in the review, papers from cross sectional, case control and cohort studies had to provide a 2×2 table of symptoms by diagnosis (colorectal cancer or polyps) or sufficient data from which that table could be constructed. The search procedure, quality appraisal, and data extraction was done twice, with disagreements resolved with another reviewer. Summary ROC analysis was used to assess the diagnostic performance of symptoms to detect colorectal cancer and polyps.ResultsColorectal cancer was associated with rectal bleeding (AUC 0.66; LR+ 1.9; LR- 0.7) and weight loss (AUC 0.67, LR+ 2.5, LR- 0.9). Neither of these symptoms was associated with the presence of polyps. There was no significant association of colorectal cancer or polyps with change in bowel habit, constipation, diarrhoea or abdominal pain. Neither the clinical setting (primary or specialist care) nor study type was associated with accuracy.Most studies had methodological flaws. There was no consistency in the way symptoms were elicited or interpreted in the studies.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that the common practice of performing colonoscopies to identify cancers in people with bowel symptoms is warranted only for rectal bleeding and the general symptom of weight loss. Bodies preparing guidelines for clinicians and consumers to improve early detection of colorectal cancer need to take into account the limited value of symptoms.