4.7 Article

High-dose rabeprazole-amoxicillin dual therapy and rabeprazole triple therapy with amoxicillin and levofloxacin for 2 weeks as first and second line rescue therapies for Helicobacter pylori treatment failures

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 1097-1102

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2012.05054.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Malaysian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background H. pylori eradication failures are difficult to treat and rescue therapies often consist of complex treatment regimens. Aim To determine an effective and practical rescue therapeutic strategy for H. pylori treatment failures using two consecutive regimens: first rescue therapy - rabeprazole 20 mg t.d.s. and amoxicillin 1 g t.d.s. for 2 weeks and for failures a further second rescue therapy - rabeprazole 20 mg b.d., levofloxacin 500 mg b.d., amoxicillin 1 g b.d. for a further 2 weeks. Methods Consecutive patients who failed the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) 1-week triple therapy were recruited for the study. H. pylori status was determined by a C-13 urea breath test. Results One hundred and forty-nine patients received the first rescue therapy. Seven were not compliant to medication/defaulted follow-up. Eradication success-first rescue therapy: per protocol (PP) analysis-107/142 (75.4%) (95% CI (68.3-82.4%) and intention to treat (ITT) analysis-107/149 (71.8%) 95% CI (64.6-79.0%). Thirty-one of 35 patients who failed the first rescue therapy received the second rescue therapy. All were compliant with medications. Eradication success-PP and ITT was 28/31 (90.3%) 95% CI (74.2-98.0%). The cumulative eradication rate using both rescue therapies: PP analysis- 135/138 (97.8%) 95% CI: (93.8-99.6%), ITT analysis- 135/149 (90.6%) 95% CI: (84.7-94.8%). Conclusions A 2-week high dose PPI-amoxicillin dual therapy followed by a PPI-amoxicillin-levofloxacin triple therapy were highly successful in achieving eradication in H. pylori treatment failures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据