甲硝唑与克拉霉素在基于冯诺普拉赞的幽门螺杆菌一线三联疗法中的比较:日本的一项多中心随机试验

IF 1.7 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY JGH Open Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI:10.1002/jgh3.13069
Soichiro Sue, Hiroyuki Oka, Yosuke Kunishi, Yuichi Suzuki, Shingo Suzuki, Takashi Kaneko, Kazuo Komatsu, Makoto Naito, Yoshio Kato, Tomohiko Sasaki, Hiroaki Kaneko, Kuniyasu Irie, Masaaki Kondo, Shin Maeda
{"title":"甲硝唑与克拉霉素在基于冯诺普拉赞的幽门螺杆菌一线三联疗法中的比较:日本的一项多中心随机试验","authors":"Soichiro Sue,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Oka,&nbsp;Yosuke Kunishi,&nbsp;Yuichi Suzuki,&nbsp;Shingo Suzuki,&nbsp;Takashi Kaneko,&nbsp;Kazuo Komatsu,&nbsp;Makoto Naito,&nbsp;Yoshio Kato,&nbsp;Tomohiko Sasaki,&nbsp;Hiroaki Kaneko,&nbsp;Kuniyasu Irie,&nbsp;Masaaki Kondo,&nbsp;Shin Maeda","doi":"10.1002/jgh3.13069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To date, no randomized trials have compared the efficacy of 7-day vonoprazan, amoxicillin, and metronidazole triple therapy (VAM) <i>versus</i> 7-day vonoprazan, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin triple therapy (VAC) as a first-line treatment for <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> eradication. This study was performed to compare the efficacy of VAM and VAC as first-line treatments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This prospective multicenter randomized trial was performed in Japan and involved 124 <i>H. pylori</i>-positive patients without a history of eradication. Patients without antibiotic resistance testing of <i>H. pylori</i> were eligible. The patients were randomized to receive either VAC (vonoprazan 20 mg + amoxicillin 750 mg + clarithromycin 200 or 400 mg twice a day) or VAM (vonoprazan 20 mg + amoxicillin 750 mg + metronidazole 250 mg twice a day) for 7 days, with stratification by age and sex. Eradication success was evaluated using the <sup>13</sup>C-urea breath test. We evaluated safety using patient questionnaires (UMIN000025773).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates of VAM were 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.0–96.7%) and 92.6% (95% CI, 83.7–97.6%), respectively, and those of VAC were 89.1% (95% CI, 77.8–95.9%) and 96.1% (95% CI, 86.5–99.5%), respectively. No significant difference was observed between VAM and VAC in either analysis (<i>P</i> = 0.76 and <i>P</i> = 0.70, respectively). Abdominal fullness was more frequent in patients who received VAM than VAC.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>These findings suggest that VAM as a first-line treatment in Japan can be categorized as grade B (intention-to-treat cure rate of 90–95%) and have potential as a first-line national insurance -approved regimen.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":45861,"journal":{"name":"JGH Open","volume":"8 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgh3.13069","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of metronidazole versus clarithromycin in first-line vonoprazan-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori: A multicenter randomized trial in Japan\",\"authors\":\"Soichiro Sue,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Oka,&nbsp;Yosuke Kunishi,&nbsp;Yuichi Suzuki,&nbsp;Shingo Suzuki,&nbsp;Takashi Kaneko,&nbsp;Kazuo Komatsu,&nbsp;Makoto Naito,&nbsp;Yoshio Kato,&nbsp;Tomohiko Sasaki,&nbsp;Hiroaki Kaneko,&nbsp;Kuniyasu Irie,&nbsp;Masaaki Kondo,&nbsp;Shin Maeda\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jgh3.13069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background and Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To date, no randomized trials have compared the efficacy of 7-day vonoprazan, amoxicillin, and metronidazole triple therapy (VAM) <i>versus</i> 7-day vonoprazan, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin triple therapy (VAC) as a first-line treatment for <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> eradication. This study was performed to compare the efficacy of VAM and VAC as first-line treatments.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This prospective multicenter randomized trial was performed in Japan and involved 124 <i>H. pylori</i>-positive patients without a history of eradication. Patients without antibiotic resistance testing of <i>H. pylori</i> were eligible. The patients were randomized to receive either VAC (vonoprazan 20 mg + amoxicillin 750 mg + clarithromycin 200 or 400 mg twice a day) or VAM (vonoprazan 20 mg + amoxicillin 750 mg + metronidazole 250 mg twice a day) for 7 days, with stratification by age and sex. Eradication success was evaluated using the <sup>13</sup>C-urea breath test. We evaluated safety using patient questionnaires (UMIN000025773).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates of VAM were 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.0–96.7%) and 92.6% (95% CI, 83.7–97.6%), respectively, and those of VAC were 89.1% (95% CI, 77.8–95.9%) and 96.1% (95% CI, 86.5–99.5%), respectively. No significant difference was observed between VAM and VAC in either analysis (<i>P</i> = 0.76 and <i>P</i> = 0.70, respectively). Abdominal fullness was more frequent in patients who received VAM than VAC.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>These findings suggest that VAM as a first-line treatment in Japan can be categorized as grade B (intention-to-treat cure rate of 90–95%) and have potential as a first-line national insurance -approved regimen.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JGH Open\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgh3.13069\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JGH Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgh3.13069\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JGH Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgh3.13069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的 迄今为止,还没有随机试验比较过 7 天的冯诺普拉赞、阿莫西林和甲硝唑三联疗法(VAM)与 7 天的冯诺普拉赞、阿莫西林和克拉霉素三联疗法(VAC)作为根除幽门螺旋杆菌一线疗法的疗效。本研究旨在比较 VAM 和 VAC 作为一线疗法的疗效。 方法 该前瞻性多中心随机试验在日本进行,涉及 124 名无根除史的幽门螺杆菌阳性患者。未经幽门螺杆菌抗生素耐药性检测的患者均符合条件。患者被随机分配接受 VAC(沃诺普赞 20 毫克 + 阿莫西林 750 毫克 + 克拉霉素 200 或 400 毫克,每天两次)或 VAM(沃诺普赞 20 毫克 + 阿莫西林 750 毫克 + 甲硝唑 250 毫克,每天两次)治疗,为期 7 天,并按年龄和性别进行分层。使用 13C 尿素呼气试验评估根除成功率。我们使用患者调查问卷(UMIN000025773)对安全性进行了评估。 结果 VAM 的意向治疗根除率和按协议根除率分别为 91.3%(95% 置信区间 [CI],82.0-96.7%)和 92.6%(95% CI,83.7-97.6%),VAC 的意向治疗根除率和按协议根除率分别为 89.1%(95% CI,77.8-95.9%)和 96.1%(95% CI,86.5-99.5%)。在这两项分析中,VAM 和 VAC 之间均未观察到明显差异(P = 0.76 和 P = 0.70)。与 VAC 相比,接受 VAM 的患者更容易出现腹部饱胀。 结论 这些研究结果表明,在日本,VAM 作为一线治疗可被归类为 B 级(意向治疗治愈率为 90-95%),有可能成为国家保险批准的一线治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of metronidazole versus clarithromycin in first-line vonoprazan-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori: A multicenter randomized trial in Japan

Background and Aim

To date, no randomized trials have compared the efficacy of 7-day vonoprazan, amoxicillin, and metronidazole triple therapy (VAM) versus 7-day vonoprazan, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin triple therapy (VAC) as a first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication. This study was performed to compare the efficacy of VAM and VAC as first-line treatments.

Methods

This prospective multicenter randomized trial was performed in Japan and involved 124 H. pylori-positive patients without a history of eradication. Patients without antibiotic resistance testing of H. pylori were eligible. The patients were randomized to receive either VAC (vonoprazan 20 mg + amoxicillin 750 mg + clarithromycin 200 or 400 mg twice a day) or VAM (vonoprazan 20 mg + amoxicillin 750 mg + metronidazole 250 mg twice a day) for 7 days, with stratification by age and sex. Eradication success was evaluated using the 13C-urea breath test. We evaluated safety using patient questionnaires (UMIN000025773).

Results

The intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates of VAM were 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.0–96.7%) and 92.6% (95% CI, 83.7–97.6%), respectively, and those of VAC were 89.1% (95% CI, 77.8–95.9%) and 96.1% (95% CI, 86.5–99.5%), respectively. No significant difference was observed between VAM and VAC in either analysis (P = 0.76 and P = 0.70, respectively). Abdominal fullness was more frequent in patients who received VAM than VAC.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that VAM as a first-line treatment in Japan can be categorized as grade B (intention-to-treat cure rate of 90–95%) and have potential as a first-line national insurance -approved regimen.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JGH Open
JGH Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outcomes and validity of risk stratification tools for endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer in Western Australia Influence of patient characteristics on Helicobacter pylori eradication with Vonoprazan: A subgroup analysis of the pHalcon-HP trial Association between serum alder-specific immunoglobulin E positivity and seasonal onset of eosinophilic esophagitis Metastatic renal cell carcinoma presenting as gastrointestinal bleeding Feasibility of transperineal intestinal ultrasound in assessing ulcerative proctitis during pregnancy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1