Helicobacter pylori best treatment approach: should a national consensus be the best consensus?

Christos Liatsosa, Sotirios D. Georgopoulosb

Gastroenterology Department, 401 Army General Hospital of Athens (Christos Liatsos), Athens, Greece

Gastroenterology Department, Athens Medical P. Faliron General Hospital (Sotirios D. Georgopoulos), Athens, Greece

Correspondence to: Christos Liatsos, MD, PhD, Consultant Gastroenterologist, Gastroenterology Department, 401 Army General Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece, Fellow of European Board of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, PO Box: 833, 19009, Pikermi - Rafina, Greece, e-mail: cliatsos@yahoo.com
Received 05 June 2017; accepted 18 July 2017; published online 02 August 2017
DOI: 10.20524/aog.2017.0183
© 2017 Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology

Ann Gastroenterol 2017; 30 (6): 704-706

A significant number of national and international consensuses have been published in the literature during recent years concerning the treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). These guidelines are aimed toward achieving an extremely high cure rate (≥90%), which seems to be unachievable in real-world settings, especially in areas with high clarithromycin resistance, such as southern Europe [1]. Times change quickly and, as with other infectious diseases, we are moving inevitably from a trial-and-error therapeutic approach to a susceptibility-based one. Empirical first-line treatments should be based on what works best in each geographical and/or national area and must take into account the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in each region.

We have reviewed the basic conclusive suggestions from the existing guidelines and consensuses worldwide concerning the best anti-H. pylori treatment approach in relation to antibiotic resistance (Table 1) [2-13]. According to this global plethora of recommendations, it is worth remembering that the determinants of a successful H. pylori eradication could be divided into host-related (e.g., previous antibiotic exposure, patient’s adherence to a multi-drug regimen and/or genetic factors) and H. pylori-related factors, with antibiotic sensitivity appearing to be the most important and consistent predictor of success, both in clinical trials and in population-based studies of H. pylori eradication [14,15]. Thus, it is of major importance for a country’s clinical practitioners to know the local pattern of resistance. It seems apparent that an international consensus should play a major role in a specialist’s decision making, but it also appears quite reasonable and inevitable that a national consensus, based on nationwide surveys of first-line, second-line and rescue therapies, as well as the local prevalence of antibiotic resistance, should play the major role in each clinician’s judgment. In a recently published review, De Francesco et al provided a critical reappraisal of updated worldwide guidelines [16]. The authors fairly concluded that, although several of these guidelines highlighted that the results being achieved by an eradication therapy are population-specific and not directly transferable to another one, it emerged that some therapeutic regimens are recommended or discouraged with no mention of the need to consult existing national data. However, if solid susceptibility data are available for a specific population, then one could recommend or reject various therapeutic regimens for this population, because antimicrobial resistance seems to represent the key factor adversely affecting the outcome of eradication treatment. Nevertheless, each national study group and consensus panel should avoid taking isolated data from one study in a specific region of the country and arbitrarily generalizing them to the entire country’s population. On the other hand, this extrapolation seems to be generally accepted for one country if its susceptibility pattern has been thoroughly defined.

Table 1 Basic conclusive suggestions and data concerning the best approach to H. pylori treatment from the worldwide existing guidelines and consensuses in relation to antibiotic resistance

thumblarge

It seems that the best treatment approach to H. pylori is running at full speed toward treatments based on a national consensus that should exist for each country. Undoubtedly, guidelines of a neighboring country or a continental consensus could be used in a tutorial manner, particularly when local information is lacking.

References

1. Liatsos C, Leontiadis GI. The “report card” to grade H. pylori treatment regimens: is it achievable in real-world in areas with high clarithromycin resistance? J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2017;26:203-204.

2. Chey WD, Leontiadis GI, Howden CW, Moss SF. ACG Clinical Guideline: Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:212-239.

3. Rollan A, Arab JP, Camargo MC, et al. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection in Latin America: a Delphi technique-based consensus. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:10969-10983.

4. Fallone CA, Chiba N, van Zanten SV, et al. The Toronto consensus for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in adults. Gastroenterology 2016;151:51-69.

5. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al; European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group and Consensus panel. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection-the Maastricht V/Florence Consensus Report. Gut 2017;66:6-30.

6. Smith S, Boyle B, Brennan D, et al. The Irish Helicobacter pylori Working Group consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori infection in adult patients in Ireland. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;29:552-559.

7. Zagari RM, Romano M, Ojetti V, et al. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection in Italy: The III Working Group Consensus Report 2015. Dig Liver Dis 2015;47:903-912.

8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines: Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease and dyspepsia: investigation and management (CG184). NICE 2014:1-41. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg184/resources/gastrooesophageal-reflux-disease-and-dyspepsia-in-adults-investigation-and-management-pdf-35109812699845

9. Gisbert JP, Molina-Infante J, Amador J, et al. IV Spanish Consensus Conference on Helicobacter pylori infection treatment. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;39:697-721.

10. Antibiotic Expert Group. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori and ulcer healing In: eTG Complete [Internet] Melbourne. Therapeutic Guidelines Ltd. 2013. Available at www.tg.org.au [Accessed 15 March 2013].

11. Liu WZ, Xie Y, Cheng H, et al; Chinese Society of Gastroenterology, Chinese Study Group on Helicobacter pylori. Fourth Chinese National Consensus Report on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. J Dig Dis 2013;14:211-221.

12. Asaka M, Kato M, Takahashi S, et al; Japanese Society for Helicobacter Research. Guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection in Japan: 2009 revised edition. Helicobacter 2010;15:1-20.

13. Mahachai V, Vilaichone RK, Pittayanon R, et al. Thailand Consensus on Helicobacter pylori Treatment 2015. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016;17:2351-2360.

14. Papastergiou V, Georgopoulos SD, Karatapanis S. Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection: past, present and future. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol 2014;5:392-399.

15. Papastergiou V, Georgopoulos SD, Karatapanis S. Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection: meeting the challenge of antimicrobial resistance. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:9898-9911.

16. De Francesco V, Bellesia A, Ridola L, Manta R, Zullo A. First-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a critical reappraisal of updated guidelines. Ann Gastroenterol 2017;30:373-379.

Notes

Conflict of Interest: None