4.4 Article

Evidence that the degree and duration of acid suppression are related to Helicobacter pylori eradication by triple therapy

期刊

HELICOBACTER
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 317-323

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-5378.2007.00508.x

关键词

Helicobacter pylori; intragastric pH; degree and duration of acid suppression; eradication therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Backgrounds and aims: Eradication rates of Helicobacter pylori by a proton Pump inhibitor-based triple therapy depend on CYP2C19 genotype status. We investigated whether gastric acid inhibition during an eradication therapy would influence the eradication rates attained by the triple therapy. Methods: Thirty-two patients with H. pylori infection underwent the first-line triple therapy with lansoprazole 30 mg, amoxicillin 750 mg, and clarithromycin 400 mg b.i.d. for 1 week. In all 32 patients, the 24-hour intragastric pH monitoring was performed on day 6 during the treatment period. Results: The intention-to-treat-based eradication rate by the first-line therapy was 75.0% (24/32, 95%CI: 56.60-88.54%). In patients with successful eradication, the median 24-hour pH was 6.4 (range; 5.0-7.6), which was significantly higher than that in patients without eradication [5.2 (2.2-6.2), p =.0131]. The median percentage time of pH < 4.0 during 24-hour postdose in patients with eradication [0.5% (0.0-31.6%)] was significantly shorter than that in patients without eradication [26.7% (6.0-72.2%), p =.0017]. These parameters for acid inhibition significantly differed among the different CYP2C19 genotype groups. When the percentage time of pH < 4.0 and 24-hour pH were attained < 10% and > 6.0, respectively, during the eradication treatment, the majority of patients could eradicate H. pylori infection, irrespective of the bacterial susceptibility to clarithromycin. Conclusions: The sustained intragastric pH > 4.0 for a longer postdose time appears to be required for a successful eradication of H. pylori with lansoprazole and acid-labile antibiotics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据