Systematic review and meta-analysis: susceptibility-guided versus empirical antibiotic treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection.

BACKGROUND The cure rate of standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection is unacceptably low. Susceptibility-guided therapies (SGTs) have been proposed as an alternative to standard empirical treatments. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of SGTs. METHODS A systematic search was performed in multiple databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing cure rates of SGTs versus those of empirical therapy were selected and analysed separately for first- and second-line treatments. A meta-analysis was performed using risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT) to measure the effect. RESULTS Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. In first-line treatment, SGT was more efficacious than empirical 7-10 day triple therapy (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10-1.23, I (2) = 33%; NNT = 8). Most studies used a 7-10 day triple therapy and randomized the patients after endoscopy and/or culture, thus precluding the comparison of SGT versus non-invasive testing and empirical treatment in clinical practice. For second-line therapy, only four studies were found. Results were highly heterogeneous and no significant differences were found (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.82-1.51, I (2) = 87%). CONCLUSIONS Once endoscopy and culture have been performed, SGT is superior to empirical 7 or 10 day triple therapy for first-line treatment. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of SGT in clinical practice, especially when compared with currently recommended first-line quadruple therapies.