Background
Some patients find it difficult to discontinue proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Unlike the 13C‐urea breath test (UBT), the stool antigen test (SAT), particularly when domestically produced kits are used, may be less likely to yield false‐negative results.
Methods
This prospective study included a convenience series of 35 healthy Japanese subjects. Based on a statistical calculation, acceptable numbers of subjects were considered at least 21 and 11 with and without Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection, respectively. The H. pylori infection was determined using the UBT or rapid urease test. SATs were performed with three novel domestically produced kits (the rapid immunochromatography tests Quick Navi™‐H. pylori [Navi™] and Quick Chaser® H. pylori [Chaser®], and the bioluminescent enzyme immunoassay test BLEIA® ‘EIKEN’ H. pylori Antigen [BLEIA®]) before and after oral PPI administration (30 mg lansoprazole once daily for 14 days). For each kit, the sensitivities and specificities were calculated and compared before and after PPI administration. Furthermore, the cutoff index (COI) values of BLEIA® before and after PPI administration were compared in H. pylori‐infected subjects.
Results
H. pylori infection was detected in 68.6% (24/35) of the included subjects. The sensitivities and specificities before versus after PPI administration were as follows: 79.2% (19/24) and 100.0% (11/11) versus 75.0% (18/24) and 100.0% (11/11) for Navi™, respectively (p = 1); 87.5% (21/24) and 100.0% (11/11) versus 75.0% (18/24) and 100.0% (11/11) for Chaser®, respectively (p = .371); 100.0% (24/24) and 100.0% (11/11) versus 95.8% (23/24) and 100.0% (11/11) for BLEIA®, respectively (p = 1). The median COI values of BLEIA® before and after PPI administration were 1389.0 and 3207.25, respectively (p = .0839).
Conclusions
In stool specimens, H. pylori antigenicity is maintained even during PPI use. SAT using a bioluminescent enzyme immunoassay is particularly recommended because of its extremely high sensitivity.
Background: Although gender medicine has been promoted in medical research and patient care, limited information is available on sex-specific differences in response to first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy. Therefore, this retrospective study investigated sex-specific differences in response to first-line H. pylori eradication therapy with vonoprazan, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin.Method: The study included 314 patients who received vonoprazan-based triple therapy (20 mg vonoprazan, 750 mg amoxicillin, and 200 or 400 mg clarithromycin; twice daily for 7 days) as first-line H. pylori eradication therapy at Fuyoukai Murakami Hospital from March 1, 2015, to April 30, 2019. First-line eradication rates were determined by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. Sex-specific differences in the rate of drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were also monitored. Fisher’s exact test was used for identifying sex-specific differences.Results: First-line eradication rates were 95% in ITT and PP analyses regardless of sex, without significant sex-specific differences [ITT analyses: males 95.3% (203/213) vs. females 96.0% (97/101), p = 1.0; PP analyses: males 95.3% (203/213) vs. females 96.0% (95/99), p = 1.0]. However, the rate of drug-related TEAEs was significantly higher in females than in males [males 4.2% (9/213) vs. females 17.8% (18/101), p 0.001]. In particular, skin rash occurred only in females [males 0% (0/213) vs. females 10.9% (11/101), p 0.00001].Conclusion: Females experienced more drug-related TEAEs than males during first-line H. pylori eradication therapy with vonoprazan-based triple therapy. In particular, skin rash was observed only in females.
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.