Search

Aim: To evaluate the prescriptions patterns, effectiveness, and safety of adding probiotics to Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy, in Europe., Design: International, prospective, non-interventional registry of the clinical practice of the European gastroenterologists. Data were collected and quality reviewed until March 2021 at AEG-REDCap. The effectiveness was evaluated by modified intention-to-treat analysis, differentiating by geographic areas. Adverse events (AE) were categorized as mild, moderate, and severe., Results: Overall, 36,699 treatments were recorded, where 8,233 (22%) were prescribed with probiotics. Probiotics use was associated with higher effectiveness in the overall analysis (OR 1.631 [95% CI 1.456-1.828]), as well as in triple (1.702 [1.403-2.065]), quadruple (1.383 [0.996-1.920]), bismuth quadruple (1.248 [1.003-1.554] and sequential therapies (3.690 [2.686-5.069]). Lactobacillus genus was associated with a higher therapy effectiveness in Eastern Europe when triple (OR: 2.625 [CI 1.911, 3.606]) and bismuth quadruple (OR: 1.587 [CI 1.117, 2.254]) first-line therapies were prescribed. In Central Europe, the use of probiotics was associated with a decrease in both the overall incidence of AEs (0.656 [0.516, 0.888]) as well as severe AEs (0.312; [0.217, 0.449]). Bifidobacterium genus was associated with lower overall (OR: 0.725 [95% CI 0.592-0.888]) and severe (OR: 0.254 [0.185-0.347]) AEs; and Saccharomyces was associated with reduced overall (OR: 0.54 [CI 0.32-0.91]) and severe (OR 0.257 [CI 0.123-0.536]) AEs under quadruple-bismuth regimen., Conclusions: In Europe, the use of probiotics was associated with higher effectiveness and safety of H. pylori eradication therapy. Lactobacillus improved treatment effectiveness, while Bifidobacterium and Saccharomyces were associated with a better safety profile., (Copyright © 2025 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: The influence of indications for Helicobacter pylori investigation on prescriptions and effectiveness is unknown. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of indications for H. pylori investigation on prescriptions, effectiveness, compliance, and tolerance., Methods: International, prospective, non-interventional registry of the management of H. pylori infection by European gastroenterologists (Hp-EuReg). Treatment-näive patients registered from 2013 to 2023 at e-CRF AEG-REDCap were analyzed. The effectiveness was assessed by modified intention-to-treat analysis., Results: Overall, 53,636 treatment-naïve cases from 34 countries were included. Most frequent indications were: dyspepsia with normal endoscopy (49%), non-investigated dyspepsia (20%), duodenal ulcer (11%), gastric ulcer (7.7%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (2.6%). Therapy effectiveness varied by indication: duodenal ulcer (91%), gastric ulcer (90%), preneoplastic lesions (90%), dyspepsia with normal endoscopy (89%), GERD (88%), and non-investigated dyspepsia (87%). Bismuth-metronidazole-tetracycline and clarithromycin-amoxicillin-bismuth quadruple therapies achieved 90% effectiveness in all indications except GERD. Concomitant clarithromycin-amoxicillin-tinidazole/metronidazole reached 90% cure rates except in patients with non-investigated dyspepsia; whereas sequential clarithromycin-amoxicillin-tinidazole/metronidazole proved optimal (≥90%) in patients with gastric ulcer only. Adverse events were higher in patients treated for dyspepsia with normal endoscopy and duodenal ulcer compared with the remaining indications (23% and 28%, p < 0.001). Therapeutic compliance was higher in patients with duodenal ulcer and preneoplastic lesions (98% and 99%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: In Europe, patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers and preneoplastic lesions showed higher H. pylori treatment effectiveness. Bismuth and non-bismuth quadruple therapies achieved optimal results in almost all indications., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02328131., (© 2024 The Author(s). Helicobacter published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: With the increasing number of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, it is difficult to manage them within specialised IBD teams in academic medical centres: many are therefore treated in nonacademic IBD centres. It is unclear whether the time to introducing biologics is the same in both settings., Aim: We aimed to compare treatment approach with biologics in academic vs. nonacademic centres., Methods: We analysed Slovenian national IBD registry data (UR-CARE Registry, supported by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation), which included 2 academic (2319 patients) and 4 nonacademic IBD (429 patients) centres., Results: The disease phenotype was similar in both settings. In total, 1687 patients received 2782 treatment episodes with biologics. We observed no differences in treatment episodes with TNF-alpha inhibitors (60% vs. 61%), vedolizumab (24% vs. 23%), or ustekinumab (17% vs. 16%) in academic compared to nonacademic centres ( P  = 0.949). However, TNF inhibitors were less often the first biologic in academic centres (TNF inhibitors: 67.5% vs. 74.0%, vedolizumab: 20.3% vs. 17.9%, ustekinumab: 12.1% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.0096). Consequently, more patients received ustekinumab (29.8% vs. 18.3%) and vedolizumab (17.4% vs. 13.5%) and fewer TNF inhibitors (52.7% vs. 68.2%) for Crohn's disease in academic compared to nonacademic centres, with no such differences for ulcerative colitis. The time to initiation of the first biologic from diagnosis was short and similar in both settings (11.3 vs. 10.4 months, P  = 0.2)., Conclusion: In this nationwide registry analysis, we observed that biological treatment choice was similar in academic and nonacademic settings. These findings support the decentralisation of IBD care., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Management of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection requires co-treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and the use of antibiotics to achieve successful eradication., Aim: To evaluate the role of dosage of PPIs and the duration of therapy in the effectiveness of H. pylori eradication treatments based on the 'European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management' (Hp-EuReg)., Methods: Hp-EuReg is a multicentre, prospective, non-interventionist, international registry on the routine clinical practice of H. pylori management by European gastroenterologists. All infected adult patients were systematically registered from 2013 to 2022., Results: Overall, 36,579 patients from five countries with more than 1000 patients were analysed. Optimal (≥90%) first-line-modified intention-to-treat effectiveness was achieved with the following treatments: (1) 14-day therapies with clarithromycin-amoxicillin-bismuth and metronidazole-tetracycline-bismuth, both independently of the PPI dose prescribed; (2) All 10-day (except 10-day standard triple therapy) and 14-day therapies with high-dose PPIs; and (3) 10-day quadruple therapies with clarithromycin-amoxicillin-bismuth, metronidazole-tetracycline-bismuth, and clarithromycin-amoxicillin-metronidazole (sequential), all with standard-dose PPIs. In first-line treatment, optimal effectiveness was obtained with high-dose PPIs in all 14-day treatments, in 10- and 14-day bismuth quadruple therapies and in 10-day sequential with standard-dose PPIs. Optimal second-line effectiveness was achieved with (1) metronidazole-tetracycline-bismuth quadruple therapy for 14- and 10 days with standard and high-dose PPIs, respectively; and (2) levofloxacin-amoxicillin triple therapy for 14 days with high-dose PPIs. None of the 7-day therapies in both treatment lines achieved optimal effectiveness., Conclusions: We recommend, in first-line treatment, the use of high-dose PPIs in 14-day triple therapy and in 10-or 14-day quadruple concomitant therapy in first-line treatment, while standard-dose PPIs would be sufficient in 10-day bismuth quadruple therapies. On the other hand, in second-line treatment, high-dose PPIs would be more beneficial in 14-day triple therapy with levofloxacin and amoxicillin or in 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy either as a three-in-one single capsule or in the traditional scheme., (© 2023 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori remains high in the older population. Specific age-related peculiarities may impact the outcomes of H. pylori treatment. The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostics and effectiveness of H. pylori eradication between the younger and older European populations. "European Registry on H. pylori Management (Hp-EuReg)" data from 2013 to 2022 were analyzed. Patients were divided into older (≥ 60 years) and younger (18-59 years) groups. Modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis was performed. 49,461 patients included of which 14,467 (29%) were older-aged. Concomitant medications and penicillin allergy were more frequent among the older patients. Differences between younger and older populations were observed in treatment duration in first-line treatment and in proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) doses in second-line treatment. The overall incidence of adverse events was lower in the older adults group. The overall first-line treatment mITT effectiveness was 88% in younger and 90% in the older patients (p < 0.05). The overall second-line mITT treatment effectiveness was 84% in both groups. The effectiveness of the most frequent first- and second-line triple therapies was suboptimal (< 90%) in both groups. Optimal efficacy (≥ 90%) was achieved by using bismuth and non-bismuth-based quadruple therapies. In conclusion, the approach to the diagnostics and treatment of H. pylori infection did not generally differ between younger and older patients. Main differences were reported in the concurrent medications, allergy to penicillin and adverse events both in first- and second-line treatment. Optimal effectiveness rates were mostly achieved by using bismuth and non-bismuth-based quadruple therapies. No clinically relevant differences in the effectiveness between the age groups were observed., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background and Aims: Several methods are available to diagnose Helicobacter pylori infection. Our objective was to evaluate the tests used for both the initial diagnosis and the confirmation of eradication after treatment in Europe., Methods: The European Registry on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection is an international, multicentre, prospective, non-interventional registry aiming to evaluate the management of Helicobacter pylori -infected patients in Europe. Countries with at least 100 cases registered from June 2013 to April 2021, and with a validated diagnostic method were analysed. Data were quality reviewed., Results: A total of 34,920 adult patients from 20 countries were included (mean age 51 years; 61% women). To establish the initial diagnosis, invasive tests were performed in 19,801 (71%) patients, non-invasive in 11,369 (41%), and both in 3437 (12%). The most frequent were histology (n = 11,885; 43%), a rapid urease test (n = 10,636; 38%) and an urea breath test (n = 7577; 27%). According to the age, invasive tests were indicated in 11,179 (77%) ≥50 years, and in 8603 (65%) <50 years. Depending on the country, the use of invasive tests ranged from 29-99% in <50 years to 60-99% in ≥50. Most of the tests used to confirm eradication were non-invasive (n = 32,540; 93%), with the urea breath test being the most frequent (n = 32,540; 78%). In 2983 (9%) post-treatment tests, histology (n = 1887; 5%) or a rapid urease test (n = 1223; 4%) were performed., Conclusion: A great heterogeneity was observed for the initial diagnosis and confirmation of the eradication. The reasons for the apparent lack of adherence to the clinical guidelines should be further explored.

Objective: To evaluate the use, effectiveness and safety of Helicobacter pylori empirical rescue therapy in third and subsequent treatment lines in Europe., Design: International, prospective, non-interventional registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists. Data were collected and quality reviewed until October 2021 at Asociación Española de Gastroenterología-Research Electronic Data Capture. All cases with three or more empirical eradication attempts were assessed for effectiveness by modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis., Results: Overall, 2144 treatments were included: 1519, 439, 145 and 41 cases from third, fourth, fifth and sixth treatment lines, respectively. Sixty different therapies were used; the 15 most frequently prescribed encompassed >90% of cases. Overall effectiveness remained <90% in all therapies. Optimised treatments achieved a higher eradication rate than non-optimised (78% vs 67%, p<0.0001). From 2017 to 2021, only 44% of treatments other than 10-day single-capsule therapy used high proton-pump inhibitor doses and lasted ≥14 days. Quadruple therapy containing metronidazole, tetracycline and bismuth achieved optimal eradication rates only when prescribed as third-line treatment, either as 10-day single-capsule therapy (87%) or as 14-day traditional therapy with tetracycline hydrochloride (95%). Triple amoxicillin-levofloxacin therapy achieved 90% effectiveness in Eastern Europe only or when optimised. The overall incidence of adverse events was 31%., Conclusion: Empirical rescue treatment in third and subsequent lines achieved suboptimal effectiveness in most European regions. Only quadruple bismuth-metronidazole-tetracycline (10-day single-capsule or 14-day traditional scheme) and triple amoxicillin-levofloxacin therapies reached acceptable outcomes in some settings. Compliance with empirical therapy optimisation principles is still poor 5 years after clinical practice guidelines update., Trial Registration Number: NCT02328131., Competing Interests: Competing interests: OPN has received research funding from Mayoly and Allergan. JPG has served as speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from Mayoly, Allergan, Diasorin, Gebro Pharma and Richen. MC-F has received retribution from Allergan for formative actions. AP-A has received retribution from Allergan and Mylan for formative actions. Laimas Jonaitis has served as speaker for KRKA. AL has served as a consultant to Bayer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, primarily from Asian countries, have reported good effectiveness with high-dose dual therapy (HDDT) including a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin when prescribed as H. pylori first-line or rescue treatment. However, combining amoxicillin with PPIs in the 1990s in several European countries yielded suboptimal results., Methods: An international, multicenter, prospective non-interventional Registry (Hp-EuReg) aimed to evaluate the decisions and outcomes of H. pylori management by European gastroenterologists. All infected adult cases treated with HDDT were registered at e-CRF AEG-REDCap platform until June 2021. Sixty patients were prescribed with HDDT (98% compliance), 19 of them received a first-line therapy and 41 a rescue treatment (second- to sixth-line)., Results: Overall HDDT effectiveness was 52% (per-protocol) and 51% (modified intention-to-treat). First-line and rescue treatment lines were equally effective, but the effectiveness was worse when patients had previously received metronidazole, tetracycline, or rifabutin. Adding bismuth to HDDT in rescue treatment did not yield better results. The incidence of adverse events was 30%, diarrhea being the most common (20% of patients); no serious adverse events were reported., Conclusion: Although HDDT is safe and has good compliance, it is not a good option in European first-line or rescue H. pylori treatment, even when adding bismuth.

Introduction: Having in mind the importance of providing continuous pediatric dental services during the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that children have similar viral loads to adults, the potential to spread the virus to others, and with variable clinical presentation of COVID-19 infection, this study aimed to analyze the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on pediatric dentistry service provision, risks, and preventive measures before and during dental treatment., Method: Structured and closed epidemiological cross-sectional survey involved seven Southeastern European countries. The questionnaire was developed using the modified Delphi method, pretested, and tested in North Italy during April 2020. The sample consisted of licensed dental professionals reached via national dental chambers and social media using the best strategies according to the national setting., Results: A total of 3227 dentists participated in the survey, and we included 643 specialists in this study-among them, 164 were pediatric dentists. Most pediatric dentists worked in the public sector (61.0%) and provided emergency (64.6%) and routine dental treatment (18.3%) during the outbreak. One-third of pediatric dentists were COVID-19 tested, statistically significantly more than other specialties, and 3.0% tested COVID-19 positive. In addition, significantly more pediatric dentists (13.4%) reported the presence of at least one symptom related to COVID-19 compared to other specialists (6.1%). None of the pediatric dentists reported PPE shortage. However, 26.2% of all specialists stated that they lacked clear step by step professional guidance in a national language. Similarly, in both groups, around 10% of specialists attended education on coronavirus., Conclusions: Considering that most pediatric dentists provided dental treatment during lockdown in their countries in public health centers and that they will continue to work during pandemic, our results suggest that pediatric dentists might be at higher risk of COVID-19 infection. Further research should focus on finding better ways to promote and adapt preventive, protective measures and PPE in the pediatric dental setting to be behaviorally acceptable. Moreover, additional efforts should be invested in dental education regarding COVID-19 in the mother tongue.