Safety and Efficacy of Nitazoxanide-Based Regimen for the Eradication of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (HP) is the most common cause of gastritis worldwide. Clarithromycin-based triple therapy or bismuth-based quadruple therapy is usually considered the first-line treatment, however with around 30% failure rate for both regimens. Drug resistance of clarithromycin and metronidazole is a growing concern in some parts of the world. Therefore, there is a need for effective eradication regimen for HP. Nitazoxanide, a bactericidal thiazolide antibiotic, has been shown to be effective in HP infection. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of nitazoxanide-based regimen for the eradication of HP. METHODS: We have searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline and Cochrane library database from inception to December 9, 2020 to identify studies that utilized nitazoxanide in the treatment regimen for HP eradication. Our primary outcome was pooled eradication rate of HP. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including 1,028 patients met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed in a meta-analysis. HP eradication was successful in 867 patients with a pooled eradication rate of 86% (95% confidence interval (CI): 79-90%) with 84% heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis that included 230 patients who failed other prior eradication regimens revealed a pooled eradication rate of 85% (95% CI: 69-94%) without heterogeneity. In a subgroup analysis, highest eradication rates were achieved with levofloxacin, doxycycline, nitazoxanide and proton pump inhibitor with a pooled eradication rate of 92% (88-95%). CONCLUSION: Nitazoxanide-based regimen is safe and effective in the eradication of HP infection. It is also successful as a salvage therapy in patients who have failed prior treatments.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".