Furazolidone‐containing triple and quadruple eradication therapy for initial treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection: A multicenter randomized controlled trial in China

Background

The efficacy of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication has steadily declined, primarily because of antibiotic resistance. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of furazolidone eradication therapies as initial treatments for H. pylori infection.

Methods

A national, multicenter, open‐label, randomized controlled trial was performed at 16 sites across 13 provinces in China to evaluate the efficacy and safety of furazolidone‐containing therapies for H. pylori infection. Treatment naïve patients were randomly assigned to: esomeprazole 20 mg, bismuth 220 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, and furazolidone 100 mg twice daily for 10 and 7 days (FAB 10 and FAB 7; the same therapy without bismuth (FA 10 and FA 7). The primary and secondary outcomes were the eradication rate and regimen safety, respectively. Treatment success was assessed by the ¹³C urea breath test at least 4 weeks after treatment completion.

Results

Overall, according to intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis, the eradication rates for FAB 10 and FAB 7 were 86.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.9%‐93.2%) and 83.6% (95% CI, 76.3%‐90.9%) and for FA 10 and FA 7 were 82.4% (95% CI, 74.9%‐89.8%) and 77.6% (95% CI, 69.4%‐85.8%), respectively. According to per‐protocol analysis, the overall eradication rates for FAB 10 and FAB 7 were 94.7% (95% CI, 90.3%‐99.1%) and 90.8% (95% CI, 85.1%‐96.5%) and for FA 10 and FA 7 were 90.6% (95% CI, 84.9%‐96.3%) and 85.1% (95% CI, 78.2%‐92.1%), respectively. The overall prevalence of side effects was 8.1%.

Conclusions

Furazolidone‐containing therapies, particularly the tested 10‐day quadruple therapy, exhibited satisfactory efficacy and safety. This 10‐day quadruple therapy represents a promising initial treatment strategy for Chinese patients.     

Editorial – Avoiding Unethical Helicobacter pylori Clinical Trials: Susceptibility‐Based Studies and Probiotics as Adjuvants

As a general rule, any clinical study where the result is already known or when the investigator(s) compares an assigned treatment against another assigned treatment known to be ineffective in the study population (e.g., in a population with known clarithromycin resistance) is unethical. As susceptibility‐based therapy will always be superior to empiric therapy in any population with a prevalence of antimicrobial resistance >0%, any trial that randomizes susceptibility‐based therapy with empiric therapy would be unethical. The journal Helicobacter welcomes susceptibility or culture‐guided studies, studies of new therapies, and studies of adjuvants and probiotics. However, the journal will not accept for review any study we judge to be lacking clinical equipoise or which assign subjects to a treatment known to be ineffective, such as a susceptibility‐based clinical trial with an empiric therapy comparator. To assist authors, we provide examples and suggestions regarding trial design for comparative studies, for susceptibility‐based studies, and for studies testing adjuvants or probiotics.