Prolonged Treatment Duration is Required for Successful<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Eradication with Proton Pump Inhibitor Triple Therapy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional seven-day proton pump inhibitor triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication has recently shown disappointing results outside of Canada. Prolonging therapy may be associated with poorer compliance and, hence, may not have a better outcome in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of seven- and 14-day triple therapy for first-line treatment of H pylori infection in an effectiveness setting in Canada. METHODS: A total of 314 consecutive treatment-naive, adult H pylori-infected patients were allocated to either a seven- or 14-day triple therapy regimen, with a subgroup of 172 consecutive patients quasi-randomized to treatment according to date of visit. Eradication was confirmed using either urea breath test or gastric biopsies. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Eradication was achieved in a higher proportion of patients who underwent 14-day versus seven-day treatment regimens (overall: 85% versus 70% [P≤0.001]; subgroup: 83% versus 64% [P≤0.01]). Although successful eradication was also associated with older age and a diagnosis of ulcer disease, multivariate analysis revealed only longer treatment duration and lack of yogurt ingestion as independent predictors of successful eradication. There was a trend toward reduced success in the latter years of the study. Side effects were similar in both groups and were not prevented by yogurt ingestion. CONCLUSIONS: The currently recommended duration of proton pump inhibitor triple therapy in Canada should be increased from seven to 14 days, the latter having achieved an excellent result in this particular real-world setting. Yogurt added no benefit. Further study is required to compare 10-day with 14-day treatment regimens.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".