Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) treatment remains a challenge for the clinician, as no available therapy is able to cure the infection in all treated patients. In the last two decades, several antibiotic combinations have been proposed, including triple therapies, bismuth-free therapies (sequential, concomitant, hybrid regimens), and bismuth-based quadruple therapy. Some national and international guidelines on H. pylori management have recently been updated, recommending or discouraging the use of each of these therapeutic approaches, based mainly on the presumed pattern of primary antibiotic resistance in different geographic areas. We examined the recommendations on first-line therapies in the most recently updated guidelines worldwide, taking into account other data affecting the efficacy of a therapy regimen beyond the primary resistance pattern. Although several guidelines highlighted that the results achieved by an eradication therapy are population-specific and not directly transferable, it emerged that some therapy regimens are recommended or discouraged with no mention of the vital need for national data.

Furazolidone therapy for Helicobacter pylori: Is it effective and safe?

A correlation between δ over baseline (DOB) values of the [¹³C]urea breath test (UBT) and Helicobacter pylori clarithromycin resistance has been reported, suggesting a possible predictive role of UBT in therapeutic outcome. However, available data are limited and conflicting. This study aimed to clarify this issue, assessing the possible relationship between H. pylori resistance towards different antibiotics (clarithromycin, metronidazole and levofloxacin) and UBT values. The data showed similar DOB values between susceptible and resistant strains for clarithromycin (46.9±32.3 vs 45.7±30.6; P=0.8), metronidazole (46.4±29.6 vs 47.4±37.9; P=0.8), and levofloxacin (45.0±30.2 vs 54.2±38.4; P=0.08). Likewise, comparable DOB values were observed between susceptible and multidrug-resistant strains (45.4±29.6 vs 54.8±44.8; P=0.1). In conclusion, our data failed to find a significant correlation between UBT values and H. pylori antibiotic resistance.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been proposed for removal of gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (GI-SETs), but data are still scanty. This study aimed to report a case series from a western country. Patients and Methods: Data of patients with upper GI-SETs suitable for ESD removal observed in 4 centers were retrospectively reviewed. Before endoscopic procedure, the lesion was characterized by endosonographic evaluation, histology, and CT scan. The en bloc resection and the R0 resection rates were calculated, as well as incidence of complications, and the 1-year follow-up was reported. Results: Data of 84 patients with esophageal (N = 13), gastric (N = 61), and duodenal (N = 10) GI-SETs were collected. The mean diameter of lesions was 26 mm (range: 12–110 mm). There were 17 gastrointestinal stromal tumors, 12 neuroendocrine tumors, 35 leiomyomas, 18 lipomas, and 2 hamartomas. En bloc and R0 resection were achieved in 83 (98.8%) and in 80 (95.2%) patients, respectively. Overall, a complication occurred in 11 (13.1%) patients, including bleeding (N = 7) and perforation (N = 4). Endoscopic approach was successful in all bleedings, but 1 patient who required radiological embolization, and in 2 perforations, while surgery was performed in the other patients. Overall, a surgical approach was eventually needed in 5 (5.9%), including 3 in whom R0 resection failed and 2 with perforation. Conclusions: Our study found that ESD may be an effective and safe alternative to surgical intervention for both benign and localized malignant GI-SETs.