Rescue Therapy Using a Rifabutin‐Based Regimen is Effective for Cure of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of rescue therapy using rifabutin, amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in patients who have failed at least one course of PPI-based triple therapy. METHODS: The present study was a single-centre case series of 16 consecutive patients who had received at least one course of standard eradication therapy. Pretreatment evaluation included endoscopy with biopsies for histology and culture for H pylori infection. Treatment consisted of a one-week regimen containing a PPI twice daily, amoxicillin (A) 1 g twice daily and rifabutin (R) 300 mg once daily (PPI-AR). Post-treatment evaluation consisted of a repeat endoscopy with biopsy for histology and culture, or a validated urea breath test at least four weeks after treatment was completed. Pretreatment antibiotic susceptibility to metronidazole, clarithromycin and A was evaluated using a validated epsilometer test. RESULTS: Of the 16 patients, four had previously received one course of triple therapy, 10 had received two courses and two had received more than two courses. The overall success rate of PPI-AR was 63% (10 of 16). Resistance to A was 0% (0 of 13), metronidazole 77% (10 of 13), clarithromycin 70% (seven of 10), and both metronidazole and clarithromycin 60% (six of 10). There was no correlation between resistance patterns and cure rate. CONCLUSIONS: An R-containing regimen such as PPI-AR is a viable option as rescue therapy for H pylori infection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".