Evidence Hub

Concomitant Versus Tailored Therapy Based on Antibiotic Resistance Profiles for Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Khalid A, Tabish S, Burhan M, Saad M, Gul I, Abid HMF, Hanif MS, Abdul Samad Z et al.

JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2025

2,524 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Rising antibiotic resistance has challenged empirical regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. While concomitant therapy is widely used, its effectiveness is reduced in resistant settings. Tailored therapy, guided by antimicrobial susceptibility testing, may improve outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tailored versus concomitant therapy as a first-line treatment. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2025 for RCTs enrolling treatment-naïve adults with confirmed H. pylori infection. The primary outcome was the eradication rate by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses, with adverse events as a secondary outcome. We included eight RCTs with 2524 patients (1332 tailored, 1192 concomitant). Tailored therapy achieved higher eradication rates than concomitant therapy in the ITT analysis (87.4% vs. 83.2%; RR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10; p = 0.05) and the PP analysis (92.6% vs. 89.1%; RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.00-1.07; p = 0.03). Furthermore, tailored therapy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of adverse events (35.6% vs. 45.6%; RR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.58-0.86; p = 0.0007). In conclusion, tailored therapy provides modestly higher H. pylori eradication rates and significantly fewer adverse events compared to empirical concomitant therapy. These findings support using tailored therapy as the preferred first-line option, particularly in regions with high…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,524 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free