Antibiotic susceptibility, heteroresistance, and updated treatment strategies in <em>Helicobacter pylori</em> infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In this review, we discuss the problem of antibiotic resistance, heteroresistance, the utility of cultures and antibiotic susceptibility tests in Helicobacter pylori ( Hp ) eradication, as well as the updated treatment strategies for this infection. The prevalence of antibiotic resistance is increasing all over the world, especially for metronidazole and clarithromycin, because of their heavy use in some geographical areas. Heteroresistance (simultaneous presence of both susceptible and resistant strains in different sites of a single stomach) is another important issue, as an isolate could be mistakenly considered susceptible if a single biopsy is used for antimicrobial tests. We also examined literature data regarding eradication success rates of culture-guided and empiric therapies. The empiric therapy and the one based on susceptibility testing, in Hp eradication, may depend on several factors such as concomitant diseases, the number of previous antibiotic treatments, differences in bacterial virulence in individuals with positive or negative cultures, together with local antibiotic resistance patterns in real-world settings. Updated treatment strategies in Hp infection presented in the guidelines of the Toronto Consensus Group (2016) are reported. These suggest to prolong eradication therapy up to 14 days, replacing the old triple therapy with a quadruple therapy based on proton pump inhibitor (PPI), bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline for most of the patients, or as an alternative quadruple therapy without bismuth, based on the use of PPI, amoxicillin, metronidazole, and clarithromycin. The new drug vonoprazan, a first-in-class potassium-competitive acid blocker recently approved in Japan, is also considered to be a promising solution for Hp eradication, even for clarithromycin-resistant strains. Furthermore, there is growing interest in finding new therapeutic strategies, such as the development of vaccines or the use of natural resources, including probiotics, plants, or nutraceuticals. Keywords: eradication, biopsies, rescue
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".