Failure of first-line eradication treatment significantly increases prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Helicobacter pylori clinical isolates

Objectives:Helicobacter pylori infection is a major health problem worldwide, and effective eradication of the infection is mandatory. The efficacy of recommended eradication regimens is approximately 70%. To avoid treatment failure and the consequent development of secondary resistance(s), it is im...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical pathology 2008-10, Vol.61 (10), p.1112-1115
Hauptverfasser: Romano, M, Iovene, M R, Russo, M I, Rocco, A, Salerno, R, Cozzolino, D, Pilloni, A P, Tufano, M A, Vaira, D, Nardone, G
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives:Helicobacter pylori infection is a major health problem worldwide, and effective eradication of the infection is mandatory. The efficacy of recommended eradication regimens is approximately 70%. To avoid treatment failure and the consequent development of secondary resistance(s), it is important to choose the most appropriate first-line treatment regimen. This choice should also be made based on the knowledge of the antimicrobial resistance peculiar to a given geographical area. We evaluated the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant H pylori strains isolated from naive patients and from patients with previous unsuccessful treatments.Methods:This study examined 109 H pylori-infected subjects (Group 1) who had never received an eradication treatment and 104 H pylori-infected subjects (Group 2) who had failed one or more eradication treatments. Resistance to amoxicillin (AMO), tetracycline (TET), clarithromycin (CLA), metronidazole (MET) and levofloxacin (LEV) was determined using the epsilometer test. The significance of differences was evaluated by the χ2 test.Results:The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was 0% versus 3.1% to AMO, 0% versus 2% to TET, 27% versus 41.3% to MET (p
ISSN:0021-9746
1472-4146
DOI:10.1136/jcp.2008.060392