首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Clinical Medicine >Clarithromycin Versus Metronidazole in First-Line Helicobacter Pylori Triple Eradication Therapy Based on Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents: Meta-Analysis
【2h】

Clarithromycin Versus Metronidazole in First-Line Helicobacter Pylori Triple Eradication Therapy Based on Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents: Meta-Analysis

机译:基于抗微生物剂耐药性的一线幽门螺旋杆菌三联根除疗法中克拉霉素和甲硝唑的比较:荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: International treatment guidelines for infection recommend a proton pump inhibitor (PPI)/amoxicillin/clarithromycin (CAM) regimen (PAC) or PPI/amoxicillin/metronidazole (MNZ) regimen (PAM) as first-line therapy based on culture and sensitivity testing. As incidence rates of antimicrobial agent-resistant strains are changing year by year, it is important to reevaluate the efficacy of eradication regimens. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PAC and PAM based on different locations categorized by the reported incidence of CAM- and MNZ-resistant strains. Methods: Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing eradication rates between PAC and PAM first-line treatment up to December 2018 were included. We divided RCTs into four groups based on resistance to CAM (< 15% or ≥ 15%) and MNZ (< 15% or ≥ 15%). Results: A total of 27 studies (4825 patients) were included. Overall eradication rates between PAC and PAM were similar (74.8% and 72.5%, relative risk (RR): 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91–1.39, = 0.27) in the intention-to-treat analysis. In areas with low MNZ- and high CAM-resistance rates, PAM had a significantly higher eradication rate than PAC (92.5% vs. 70.8%, RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.13–0.68). In areas with high MNZ- and low CAM-resistance rates, the eradication rate with PAC was only 72.9%. Conclusions: Overall eradication rates with PAC and PAM were equivalent worldwide. In low MNZ-resistance areas, PAM may be recommended as first-line therapy. However, the efficacy of PAC may be insufficient, irrespective of susceptibility to CAM.
机译:背景:国际感染治疗指南推荐基于培养和敏感性测试的质子泵抑制剂(PPI)/阿莫西林/克拉霉素(CAM)方案(PAC)或PPI /阿莫西林/甲硝唑(MNZ)方案(PAM)作为一线治疗。由于抗微生物剂耐药菌株的发生率逐年变化,因此重新评估根除方案的有效性非常重要。我们进行了荟萃分析,以根据报告的CAM和MNZ耐药菌株发生率分类的不同位置评估PAC和PAM的功效和安全性。方法:纳入比较截至2018年12月PAC和PAM一线治疗的根除率的随机对照试验(RCT)。根据对CAM(<15%或≥15%)和MNZ(<15%或≥15%)的抵抗力,我们将RCT分为四组。结果:共纳入27项研究(4825例患者)。在意向性治疗分析中,PAC和PAM之间的总根除率相似(74.8%和72.5%,相对风险(RR):1.13,95%置信区间(CI):0.91-1.39,= 0.27)。在低MNZ和高CAM耐药率的地区,PAM的根除率显着高于PAC(92.5%对70.8%,RR:0.29,95%CI:0.13-0.68)。在MNZ高和CAM耐药率低的地区,PAC根除率仅为72.9%。结论:PAC和PAM的总根除率在世界范围内是相等的。在MNZ耐药性较低的地区,PAM可能被推荐作为一线治疗。但是,无论对CAM的敏感性如何,PAC的功效可能都不足。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号