Clarithromycin or levofloxacin in the sequential therapy for H. pylori eradication?
Angelo Zullo, Cesare Hassan, C D’Ercole, Vincenzo De Francesco, D. Vaira
Abstract
Angelo Zullo, Cesare Hassan, C D’Ercole, Vincenzo De Francesco, D. Vaira
Abstract
Sirs, We read with great interest the study by Molin-Infante et al.,1 showing that levofloxacin-based triple sequential therapy achieved higher Helicobacter pylori eradication rates than similar clarithromycin-based regimens. We believe that at least five aspects of this trial should be discussed. Firstly, when introducing a novel eradication regimen, the therapeutic option in those patients who failed eradication should be also described. Following clarithromycin-based, standard sequential therapy failure, the infection can be cured in more than 80% by using a 10-day, levofloxacin-based triple re-treatment.2 How were the eradication failure patients following a levofloxacin-based regimen cured? Secondly, the clarithromycin-based sequential therapy used in the present study used metronidazole instead of tinidazole. It is known that metronidazole has a markedly shorter half-life when compared with tinidazole and this could be a cause for concern in H. pylori therapy. Indeed, it has been observed that a metronidazole-based regimen achieved a significantly lower cure rate when compared with the tinidazole-based sequential therapy (301/358 vs. 1919/2075; 84.1% vs. 92.5%; P = 0.001).3 Thirdly, despite the authors' suggestions, no statistically significant difference emerged in the cure rate between levofloxacin-based and clarithromycin-based sequential regimens by either ITT or PP analysis. In detail, the 95% CI were hugely overlapping between the two treatments, being 75–89% and 69–85% respectively. This would mean that by repeating the study, an eradication rate of 75% and 85% could be observed respectively, thus completely inverting the current result. Therefore, no inference on the difference between the two modified sequential regimens should be performed. Fourthly, a recent study performed in Spain computed a primary levofloxacin resistance as low as 1.8%,4 whereas resistance rates as high as 14.3% have been quoted in Japan, 16.8% in Belgium, 17% in Brazil, 18% in Hong Kong, 19.1% in Italy, 21.5% in Korea and 22.1% in Germany.5 Therefore, it is foreseeable that the eradication rate achieved in the present study with levofloxacin-based regimens is unlikely to be replicated in other countries. Finally, levofloxacin is much more expensive than clarithromycin (in Italy 500 mg levofloxacin = 4.47 euros/tablet; 500 mg clarithromycin = 1.13 euros/tablet). Therefore, cost could be a cause for concern when dealing with a very common disease, such as H. pylori infection. Declaration of personal and funding interests: None.
OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Sirs, We read with great interest the study by Molin-Infante et al.,1 showing that levofloxacin-based triple sequential therapy achieved higher Helicobacter pylori eradication rates than similar clarithromycin-based regimens. We believe that at least five aspects of this trial should be discussed. Firstly, when introducing a novel eradication regimen, the therapeutic option in those patients who failed eradication should be also described. Following clarithromycin-based, standard sequential therapy failure, the infection can be cured in more than 80% by using a 10-day, levofloxacin-based triple re-treatment.2 How were the eradication failure patients following a levofloxacin-based regimen cured? Secondly, the clarithromycin-based sequential therapy used in the present study used metronidazole instead of tinidazole. It is known that metronidazole has a markedly shorter half-life when compared with tinidazole and this could be a cause for concern in H. pylori therapy. Indeed, it has been observed that a metronidazole-based regimen achieved a significantly lower cure rate when compared with the tinidazole-based sequential therapy (301/358 vs. 1919/2075; 84.1% vs. 92.5%; P = 0.001).3 Thirdly, despite the authors' suggestions, no statistically significant difference emerged in the cure rate between levofloxacin-based and clarithromycin-based sequential regimens by either ITT or PP analysis. In detail, the 95% CI were hugely overlapping between the two treatments, being 75–89% and 69–85% respectively. This would mean that by repeating the study, an eradication rate of 75% and 85% could be observed respectively, thus completely inverting the current result. Therefore, no inference on the difference between the two modified sequential regimens should be performed. Fourthly, a recent study performed in Spain computed a primary levofloxacin resistance as low as 1.8%,4 whereas resistance rates as high as 14.3% have been quoted in Japan, 16.8% in Belgium, 17% in Brazil, 18% in Hong Kong, 19.1% in Italy, 21.5% in Korea and 22.1% in Germany.5 Therefore, it is foreseeable that the eradication rate achieved in the present study with levofloxacin-based regimens is unlikely to be replicated in other countries. Finally, levofloxacin is much more expensive than clarithromycin (in Italy 500 mg levofloxacin = 4.47 euros/tablet; 500 mg clarithromycin = 1.13 euros/tablet). Therefore, cost could be a cause for concern when dealing with a very common disease, such as H. pylori infection. Declaration of personal and funding interests: None.
Key concepts: Tinidazole, Levofloxacin, Clarithromycin, Metronidazole, Medicine, Regimen, Helicobacter pylori, Internal medicine