Evidence Hub

Efficacy and Safety of Modified Dual Therapy as the First-line Regimen for the Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Huang Q, Shi Z, Cheng H, Ye H, Zhang X

Journal of clinical gastroenterology, 2021

1,672 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Background: In an era of antibiotic resistance, modified dual therapy has been paid much attention because of simple drug composition and low resistance of amoxicillin. However, its eradication rate as a first-line regimen remains controversial. This study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of modified dual therapy for the initial treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection compared with mainstream first-line therapies.

Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched for randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of modified dual therapy as the initial treatment for H. pylori eradication compared with guideline-recommended first-line therapies. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 and dichotomous data were estimated by the risk ratio (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed subgroup analysis according to control groups and studies with antibiotic susceptibility tests.

Results: Eight studies including 1672 patients with H. pylori infection met the selection criteria and were assessed. The meta-analysis demonstrated that modified dual therapy achieved similar efficacy [85.83% vs. 86.77%, RR 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.03), intention-to-treat analysis; 89.53% vs. 90.45%, RR 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02), per-protocol analysis] and compliance [95.77% vs. 95.56%, RR 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98-1.02)] compared with recommended first-line regimens. In addition, there were no significant differences in comparing the…

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: 1,672 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