What is the Best Regimen for<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Eradication in Canadian Arctic Aboriginals?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canadian Aboriginal populations have a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and an increased risk for the development of gastric cancer (1). Thus, there is a need to identify effective H pylori eradication regimens in this at-risk population. In the current issue of the Journal, Morse et al (2) (pages 701–706) report results from a randomized controlled trial comparing sequential versus standard clarithromycin-containing triple therapy in H pylori-infected adults from the community of Aklavik (Northwest Territories) (2). The study was part of a participatory research project focusing on community-identified research goals investigating the burden of H pylori disease in Arctic Aboriginal communities. In the study by Morse et al (2), H pylori-infected patients >15 years of age were randomly assigned to either a 10-day treatment of standard triple therapy consisting of a proton pump inhibitor (rabeprazole), amoxillicin and clarithromycin, or sequential therapy. Antibiotic resistance rates to clarithromycin and metronidazole were available for almost one-half of the subjects, allowing tailored treatment. If clarithromycin resistance was detected, patients were randomly assigned to sequential therapy or quadruple therapy. Several important points are noteworthy in this study. First, as identified in other Canadian Aboriginal populations, the prevalence of H pylori infection remains high in this community despite a diminishing H pylori prevalence in most segments of the Canadian population. Second, the prevalence of precancerous lesions, gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia were high, supporting the increased risk for development of gastric cancer in this population and underscoring the need for effective H pylori eradication regimens. When outcomes were assessed by the more stringent intention-to-treat analysis, the effectiveness of both therapies was disappointing, with only 55% efficacy with triple therapy and 57% with sequential therapy. With these poor outcomes, it is important to consider why the results were suboptimal. The success of treatment for H pylori is determined, in large part, by the presence of antibiotic resistance and patient adherence (3). In the study by Morse et al (2), of the 50 subjects who underwent sensitivity testing, the rates of clarithromycin and metronidazole resistance were 10% and 26%, respectively. Thus, it is likely that similar resistance rates were present in the remaining subjects who were randomly assigned to triple versus sequential therapy. The updated Maastricht guidelines (4) do not recommend clarithromycin therapy if the local clarithromycin resistance rate is >15%. Thus, one potential explanation for the poor efficacy is antibiotic resistance. Poor adherence to therapy is an additional important determinant of efficacy (3). In the study by Morse et al, the overall adherence levels were suboptimal (60%). In fact, even in the group who underwent antibiotic sensitivity-directed therapy, the eradication rates were still low. However, in subjects with 100% compliance, treatment effectiveness increased in both the triple therapy and sequential therapy groups to 65% and 75%, respectively. Thus, the combination of antibiotic resistance and decreased adherence likely account for the poor efficacy of both triple therapy and sequential therapy. Although sequential therapy was initially regarded as superior to triple therapy, follow-up studies indicate that the efficacy of sequential therapy is not as good as the original studies suggested. Sequential therapy loses efficacy in the presence of clarithromycin and metronidaz-ole resistance (3). In the study by Morse et al, even when assessed by per-protocol analyses, efficacy of sequential therapy was well below the recommended cure rates of 80% to 90%, suggesting that this regimen is not an optimal choice in this particular community unless adherence can be improved. Morse et al should be commended for providing key information concerning H pylori infection in a Canadian Aboriginal Arctic community. This study shows that, in this at-risk population, the efficacies of two currently recommended eradication regimens are suboptimal, likely due to both antibiotic resistance and poor compliance. These findings support further studies aimed at identifying effective therapies by focusing on both optimized regimens based on known antibiotic susceptibility rates in the community and promoting adherence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».