We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression: Successful second-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori.
Helicobacter 2018 June
BACKGROUND: Multiple Helicobacter pylori second-line schedules have been described as potentially useful. It remains unclear, however, which are the best combinations, and which features of second-line treatments are related to better cure rates. The aim of this study was to determine that second-line treatments achieved excellent (>90%) cure rates by performing a systematic review and when possible a meta-analysis. A meta-regression was planned to determine the characteristics of treatments achieving excellent cure rates.
METHODS: A systematic review for studies evaluating second-line Helicobacter pylori treatment was carried out in multiple databases. A formal meta-analysis was performed when an adequate number of comparative studies was found, using RevMan5.3. A meta-regression for evaluating factors predicting cure rates >90% was performed using Stata Statistical Software.
RESULTS: The systematic review identified 115 eligible studies, including 203 evaluable treatment arms. The results were extremely heterogeneous, with 61 treatment arms (30%) achieving optimal (>90%) cure rates. The meta-analysis favored quadruple therapies over triple (83.2% vs 76.1%, OR: 0.59:0.38-0.93; P = .02) and 14-day quadruple treatments over 7-day treatments (91.2% vs 81.5%, OR; 95% CI: 0.42:0.24-0.73; P = .002), although the differences were significant only in the per-protocol analysis. The meta-regression did not find any particular characteristics of the studies to be associated with excellent cure rates.
CONCLUSION: Second-line Helicobacter pylori treatments achieving>90% cure rates are extremely heterogeneous. Quadruple therapy and 14-day treatments seem better than triple therapies and 7-day ones. No single characteristic of the treatments was related to excellent cure rates. Future approaches suitable for infectious diseases-thus considering antibiotic resistances-are needed to design rescue treatments that consistently achieve excellent cure rates.
METHODS: A systematic review for studies evaluating second-line Helicobacter pylori treatment was carried out in multiple databases. A formal meta-analysis was performed when an adequate number of comparative studies was found, using RevMan5.3. A meta-regression for evaluating factors predicting cure rates >90% was performed using Stata Statistical Software.
RESULTS: The systematic review identified 115 eligible studies, including 203 evaluable treatment arms. The results were extremely heterogeneous, with 61 treatment arms (30%) achieving optimal (>90%) cure rates. The meta-analysis favored quadruple therapies over triple (83.2% vs 76.1%, OR: 0.59:0.38-0.93; P = .02) and 14-day quadruple treatments over 7-day treatments (91.2% vs 81.5%, OR; 95% CI: 0.42:0.24-0.73; P = .002), although the differences were significant only in the per-protocol analysis. The meta-regression did not find any particular characteristics of the studies to be associated with excellent cure rates.
CONCLUSION: Second-line Helicobacter pylori treatments achieving>90% cure rates are extremely heterogeneous. Quadruple therapy and 14-day treatments seem better than triple therapies and 7-day ones. No single characteristic of the treatments was related to excellent cure rates. Future approaches suitable for infectious diseases-thus considering antibiotic resistances-are needed to design rescue treatments that consistently achieve excellent cure rates.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
The Effect of Albumin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.Critical Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 8
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app