Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 83648

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : June | Volume : 16 | Issue : 6 | Page : OC26 - OC29 Full Version

Clarithromycin versus Levofloxacin Based Triple Drug Therapy as First Line Eradication for Helicobacter pylori Infection- A Randomised Clinical Study


Published: June 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/53158.16503
Rajesh Amarnath Nanda, Karthikeyan Krishnan, Vaibhavi Kothagundu, Chegireddy Mahindranath Reddy, Sunitha Elza Mathew, Geethika Chandran

1. Associate Professor, Department of Medical Gastroenterology, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Center, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu, India. 2. Professor and Head, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Vels Institute of Science Technology and Advanced Studies, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 3. Doctor of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, SRM College of Pharmacy, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu, India. 4. Doctor of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, SRM College of Pharmacy, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu, India. 5. Doctor of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, SRM College of Pharmacy, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu, India. 6. Doctor of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, SRM College of Pharmacy, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chengalpet, Tamil

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Rajesh Amarnath Nanda,
Department of Medical Gastroenterology, 4th Floor, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Center, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chengalpet-603203, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: rajesha@srmist.edu.in

Abstract

Introduction: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) are microaerophilic gram negative, spiral shaped, flagellated bacterial pathogens transmissible to humans. The prevalence of infection with H. pylori infection varies worldwide. Pharmacologic therapy for eradication must be initiated in symptomatic individuals with emphasis on hygiene and sanitation. The high prevalence of H. pylori infection in the country, and the lack of adequate evidence on the efficacy of the standard triple therapy in Southern India was the drive to conduct this study.

Aim: To compare and evaluate the efficacy of 14 days clarithromycin based triple drug therapy over 10 days levofloxacin based triple drug therapy in H. pylori eradication.

Materials and Methods: A randomised clinical study was conducted from September 2018 to February 2019, at a tertiary care teaching hospital and research centre in suburban Chennai, Southern India. Eighty patients with dyspepsia, who were diagnosed with H. pylori infection based on both Rapid Urease Test (RUT) and histopathology of antral biopsy, were alternately assigned to treatment with either 14 days clarithromycin based triple drug regimen (PAC) or 10 days levofloxacin based triple drug regimen (PAL). Efficacy of the drugs were compared using both RUT and histopathology of endoscopic antral biopsy specimen four weeks after completion of the treatment. Chi-square test was used for data analysis.

Results: Out of the 80 enrolled patients, 70 individuals completed the study, of which 41 were males and 29 were females. Baseline characteristics were similar in the both the groups-mean age 42.31±14.8 years in PAC and 42.20±12.67 years in PAL (p=0.150); 65.7% were males and 34.3% were females in PAC group, 51.4% were males and 48.6% were females in PAL group (p=0.225). Clearance of infection was seen in 23 patients (65.7%) in PAL group as compared to 32 patients (91.4%) in the PAC (p=0.01). Among patients with failure of eradication, 3 (1.05%) from PAC group and 12 (4.20%) from PAL group had persistence of dyspeptic symptoms. In addition, 7.14% (5 out of 70-two from PAC and three from PAL group) of subjects who had H. pylori eradication had persistence of same symptoms of dyspepsia on follow-up at four weeks after completion of the regimen.

Conclusion: A 14 days clarithromycin based triple drug regimen is more effective than 10 days levofloxacin based triple drug regime for the eradication of H. pylori infection.

Keywords

Dyspepsia, Rapid urease test, Histopathology

H. pylori infection in man has been in existence since the dawn of time. In developing countries with poor sanitary conditions, it causes persistent infection and low-level disease, acting more like a commensal rather than a pathogenic organism (1). Prasad S et al., in a southern India cohort, showed that H. pylori was detected in the gastric mucosa of 83.3% healthy volunteers. They also showed high prevalence rate in subjects with gastroduodenal disease viz duodenal ulcer (92.6%), gastric ulcer (81.3%), and (71.4%) in non ulcer dyspepsia (2). As the H. pylori strains are genetically diverse, it is likely that most infected individuals in the community have less virulent strains (3). Also, excess gastric acid secretion caused by H. pylori may be protective, as it acts as a barrier to ingested pathogens (3). Until a better knowledge is acquired and understanding of the nature of the H. pylori infection in humans, its indiscriminate eradication in asymptomatic individuals is likely to do more harm than good (3). H. pylori primarily colonises the upper gastrointestinal tract, causing progressive acute and chronic gastric and duodenal inflammation. Typically, these pathologic changes do not cause symptoms, but clinical disease manifestations occur in approximately 20% of the infected, usually after a long latent period (4).

H. pylori infection can cause gastritis, duodenal ulcer disease, gastric ulcer disease, gastric atrophy, gastric adenocarcinoma, primary gastric B-cell lymphoma, vitamin B12 deficiency and iron deficiency anaemia (5),(6). The outcome of an H. pylori infection is determined by a complex interplay of host, environmental and bacterial factors including the virulence of the infecting bacterial strain. Current gold standard to diagnose the infection in India is by performing endoscopic gastric biopsy for histology and RUT (7). Selection of drug regimens for H. pylori infection are influenced by patient tolerance, efficacy, and existing antibiotic resistance. The treatment goal is to choose a regimen that will reliably produce high treatment success (8). Standard regimen using clarithromycin plus Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) plus amoxicillin or metronidazole for 14 days is the preferred first-line treatment regimen in areas with low clarithromycin resistance.

Studies from India has showed high antibacterial resistance to most commonly used anti H. pylori regimen, viz., amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and metronidazole (9). The levofloxacin based regime is considered as a salvage regimen in those not responding to the standard triple drug regime comprising a PPI, clarithromycin and amoxicillin or metronidazole. Having broad antimicrobial activity, fluroquinolones are also widely used to treat a variety of other bacterial infections (10). Widespread use of fluroquinolones in the treatment of community-acquired bacterial infections has led to the marked emergence of fluoroquinolone resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in many countries (11). Being highly prevalent in India, it is likely that H. pylori infection may also have decreased response to levofloxacin based regime due to resistance. Hence, levofloxacin based regime was chosen to study if it can justify its label of salvage/rescue regime.

Also, there is lack of literature studying efficacy of two different drug combinations in eradication of H. pylori in a given population in Southern India. The high prevalence of H. pylori infection in this population and the lack of adequate evidence on the efficacy of the standard triple therapy in the study cohort was the drive to conduct this study. This study aimed at the evaluation of efficacy of two different regimes viz clarithromycin based regime and levofloxacin based regime, in the eradication of H. pylori infection. The secondary objective was resolution of symptoms of dyspepsia.

Material and Methods

A randomised clinical trial was conducted at the Department of Medical Gastroenterology, SRM Medical College Hospital, Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu, India, between September 2018 and February 2019. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC) (IEC approval number- 1455/IEC/2018). Patients were included in the study after obtaining written informed consent and were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria: Age group 18-60 years, both genders, with symptoms of dyspepsia, including epigastric pain syndrome (epigastric burning and/or pain) and/or postprandial distress syndrome (fullness and/or meal-related early satiation), with endoscopic evidence of gastritis or gastric ulcer or duodenal ulcer, positive for H. pylori (both RUT and histopathology) were included i the study.

Exclusion criteria: Subjects who had undergone a previous eradication therapy or had a known history of hypersensitivity to penicillin group of drugs, quinolone and/or macrolide antibiotics were excluded from the study.

Sample size was calculated using the following formula:

n=Z2 × p^ (1-p^)/E2, where

n, is the required sample size which was 68, Z is the z score at 85% confidence level, P^ is the population proportion derived from 80% or more prevalence of H. pylori infection in Indian rural population (1), E is the margin of error 7%. The hospital, being located in suburban region and catering primarily to a rural population, a total of 80 H. pylori positive patients were enrolled, of which there were 10 dropouts during the study.

A total of 287 patients underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastric antral biopsies were taken if any of the above findings was seen. Slide based RUT along with histopathologic examination to detect H. pylori were performed with the antral biopsy specimens. Patients were regarded as H. pylori positive if both tests were positive.

Systematic randomisation was done in two groups where alternate patients were assigned to each group. The PAC group received 14 days clarithromycin based triple drug therapy (clarithromycin 500 mg twice a day, amoxicillin 1 gm twice a day, pantoprazole 40mg twice a day). The PAL group received 10 days levofloxacin based triple drug therapy (levofloxacin 500 mg once a day, amoxicillin 1 gm twice a day, pantoprazole 40 mg twice a day). A repeat upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, RUT and histopathologic examination of antral biopsy specimen was done four weeks after the completion of the drug regime. Eradication of H. pylori was documented in those in whom both RUT and histology were negative after four weeks. The investigator interpreting the RUT result, the pathologist performing histologic examination of biopsy specimen, and the person analysing the data were blinded to the treatment regime used (Table/Fig 1).

Statistical Analysis

Results were analysed by the graph pad prism version 6.01software and data was presented as means±Standard Deviation (SD). Chi-square method was used for the comparison between two study groups. The p-values <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 80 patients were selected for the study. The reasons for the dropout were gastrointestinal intolerance in eight patients in the form of vomiting (three in PAC group, two in PAL group), diarrhoea (one in PAC group, one in PAL group), worsening of epigastric pain (one in PAL group), two patients lost to follow-up (one in each group). Hence, the total number of subjects in this study was 70 (35 in each group).

There was no statistically significant age or gender difference between two study groups, with the mean age 42.31±14.8 years in PAC and 42.20±12.67 years in PAL group (p=0.150). Overall, 65.7% were males and 34.3% were females in PAC group; 51.4% were males and 48.6% were females in PAL group (p=0.225) (Table/Fig 2). There was a significant difference in the eradication rate between the two study groups (Table/Fig 3). There were no serious adverse events like anaphylaxis, hepatitis, pancreatitis, seizures or Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) in the study participants. Minor adverse effects like nausea, and diarrhoea were encountered by 5 (14.2%) patients in PAC group and 4 (11.4%) patients in PAL group.

Among patients who had successful H. pylori eradication, 7.14% subjects (5 out of 70) had persistence of same symptoms of dyspepsia (two had epigastric burning, two patients had postprandial distress and one patient had both epigastric burning and postprandial distress) even after eradication of H. pylori. All patients who had failure of H. pylori eradication continued to have dyspeptic symptoms (Table/Fig 4).

Discussion

Treatment of H. pylori consists of a combination of antibiotics and PPI. PPIs also have an anti H. pylori activity, and decrease the load of H. pylori (12). The available data from India do not provide the information needed to prospectively identify a successful treatment regimen. Pandya HB et al., showed high prevalence of H. pylori resistance to amoxicillin (72.5%), clarithromycin (58.8%), and levofloxacin (13.8%) in their study from Gujarat (9). Similarly, Wani FA et al., showed a high H. pylori resistance to clarithromycin (45%), and metronidazole (81%) in a population from Kashmir (13). Thyagarajan SP et al., in a multicentred study in India showed H. pylori resistance rate was 77.9% to metronidazole, 44.7% to clarithromycin and 32.8% to amoxycillin. They showed that rate of resistance was higher in southern India than in northern India (14).

A systematic review of published literature on H. pylori antibiotic resistance, concluded that the resistance pattern of H. pylori is increasing worldwide. It showed prevalence of both clarithromycin and levofloxacin resistance at around 30% in Asian population (15). Finding an antibiotic combination, with least resistance, is crucial for successful eradication of H. pylori. The success of treatment depends on patient compliance, right dose and duration and prevalence of resistant bacterial strain in the population. Gehlot VA et al., carried out a study in North India on H. pylori strains, which were cultured and then tested for resistance by agar-dilution method (16). Resistance to levofloxacin was found in 73.2% (41/56; Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) >1 μg/mL) of the isolates. Similarly, Shetty V et al., showed that 55% of H. pylori isolates were resistant to levofloxacin in a study conducted in Karnataka, India (17). These findings were similar to the present study data which showed treatment failure in 34.3% among the levofloxacin group. However, Federico A et al., conducted a study in Italy, and reported that 5-Day levofloxacin- containing concomitant therapy achieved 90% cure rate in patients who were clarithromycin resistant (18).

A prospective single centre study from Spain showed that the eradication rates were better with levofloxacin triple drug regime comprising levofloxacin, amoxicillin and omeprazole (80%), compared to standard clarithromycin triple drug regime (64%) (19). Gisbert JP et al., found that levofloxacin (500 mg b.d.), amoxicillin (1g b.d.) and ranitidine bismuth citrate (400 mg b.d.) for 10 days as first line regime, achieved H. pylori eradication in 88.5% subjects (20). In a meta-analysis of seven studies from different parts of the world by Peedikayil MC et al., showed comparable eradication rate between levofloxacin group 79.05% versus 81.4% in the standard group with clarithromycin regime (21). Another recent meta-analysis involving 13 studies in Iran showed that the H. pylori eradication rate was significantly higher in patients receiving levofloxacin compared with clarithromycin (75.2% vs. 66.3%) (22).

Therefore, evidence available from one geographical region may not be useful in determining treatment in another geographical region, due to variation in bacterial resistance pattern. Hence this study was conducted to compare the efficacy between clarithromycin based triple therapy and levofloxacin based triple therapy in the eradication of H. pylori in a southern Indian population. Patients who were residents of suburban Chennai, and adjoining Chengalpattu district were recruited for the study. Statistical data showed a significant difference in eradication rate between two groups, with clarithromycin (91.4%) showing better efficacy compared to levofloxacin (65.7%).

Though levofloxacin based triple therapy have shown good eradication rate in other countries and also in certain regions of India, this cannot be generalised to entire country as resistance occur unevenly due to large size of the Indian nation and its associated socio-economic differences. Another possible cause for the decreased efficacy of levofloxacin triple therapy could be the empiric use of levofloxacin with good success for other bacterial infections (23), wherein this widespread use could have led to inadvertent H. pylori resistance over years as this organism is widely prevalent in India. Due to lack of similar studies in this geographical area, multicentric randomised control studies, involving larger number of populations are needed.

Limitation(s)

Being a time bound study in the setting of academic trial, an in-vitro study of resistance of H. pylori isolates could not be done, which in turn would have provided direct evidence of antimicrobial resistance pattern.

Conclusion

The study suggests that levofloxacin resistance is much higher than clarithromycin resistance in this south Indian cohort. There was no difference between two groups in terms of symptom resolution in those who had successful eradication. 7.14% subjects with successful eradication had persistence of dyspeptic symptoms which was probably attributable to underlying functional dyspepsia. None of the patients with failure of eradication, which was higher in PAL group showed symptom resolution. Therefore, levofloxacin based regime may not be an ideal rescue treatment in patients who fail clarithromycin based regime. An ideal second line/rescue antibiotic regime in patients who fail first line therapy with clarithromycin regime needs to be explored.

References

1.
Blaser MJ. Helicobacters are indigenous to the human stomach: Duodenal ulceration is due to changes in gastric microecology in the modern era. Gut 1998;43:721-27. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Prasad S, Mathan M, Chandy G, Rajan DP, Venkateswaran S, Ramakrishna BS, et al. Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori in southern Indian controls and patients with gastroduodenal disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1994;9(5):501-06. Doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.1994.tb01281.x. PMID: 7827302. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Ramakrishna BS. H. pylori infection in India: The case against eradication. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2006; 25(1): 25.
4.
Axon A, Forman D. Helicobacter gastroduodenitis: A serious infectious disease. BMJ. 1997;314:1430-31. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Cardenas VM, Ortiz M, Graham DY. Helicobacter pylori eradication and its effect on iron stores: A reappraisal. J Infect Dis. 2006;194:714. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Graham DY. Helicobacter pylori infection in the pathogenesis of duodenal ulcer and gastric cancer: A model. Gastroenterology. 1997;113:1983-91. [crossref]
7.
Saksena S, Dasarathy S, Verma K, Ahuja V, Sharma MP. Evaluation of endoscopy- based diagnostic methods for the detection of Helicobacter pylori. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2000;19:61-63.
8.
Graham DY, Fischbach L. Helicobacter pylori treatment in the era of increasing antibiotic resistance. Gut. 2010;59:1143-53. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Pandya HB, Agravat HH, Patel JS, Sodagar N. Emerging antimicrobial resistance pattern of Helicobacter pylori in central Gujarat. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2014; 2:408-13. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Gaba PD, Haley C, Griffin MR, Mitchel E, Warkentin J, Holt E, et al. Increasing outpatient fluoroquinolone exposure before tuberculosis diagnosis and impact on culture-negative disease. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2317-22. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Ahmad V, Sidiq Z, Vashishtha H, Hanif M, Shrivastsava D, Dwivedi K, et al. Additional resistance to moxifloxacin and levofloxacin among MDR-TB patients with baseline resistance to ofloxacin at a reference laboratory. J Biotechnol Biomater. 2016;6(3):239. [crossref]
12.
Gatta L, Vakil N, Ricci C, Osborn JF, Tampieri A, Perna F, et al. Effect of proton pump inhibitors and antacid therapy on 13C urea breath tests and stool test for Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99: 823-29. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Wani FA, Bashir G, Khan MA, Zargar SA, Rasool Z, Qadri Q. Antibiotic resistance in Helicobacter pylori: A mutational analysis from a tertiary care hospital in Kashmir, India. Indian J ed Microbiol. 2018;36(2):265. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Thyagarajan SP, Ray P, Das BK, Ayyagari A, Khan AA, Dharmalingam S, et al. Geographical difference in antimicrobial resistance pattern of Helicobacter pylori clinical isolates from Indian patients: Multicentric study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;18(12):1373-78. Doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2003.03174.x. PMID: 14675265. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Kasahun GG, Demoz GT, Desta DM. Primary resistance pattern of H. pylori to antibiotics in adult population: A systematic review. Infect Drug Resist. 2020; 13:1567-73. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Gehlot VA, Mahant SH, Das KU, Das RA. Most of the Helicobacter pylori isolates are resistant to levofloxacin in north India. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2016;8(1):454-56.
17.
Shetty V, Lamichhane B, Tay CY, Pai GC, Lingadakai R, Balaraju G. et al. High primary resistance to metronidazole and levofloxacin, and a moderate resistance to clarithromycin in Helicobacter pylori isolated from Karnataka patients. Gut Pathog.2019 11, 21. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Federico A, Nardone G, Gravina AG, Iovene MR, Miranda A, Compare D, et al. Efficacy of 5-Day levofloxacin-containing concomitant therapy in eradication of Helicobacter pylori Infection. Gastroent. 2012;143:55-61. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Molina-Infante J, Perez-Gallardo B, Fernandez-Bermejo M, Hernandez-Alonso M, Vinagre, Dueñas C, et al. Clinical trial: clarithromycin vs. levofloxacin in first-line triple and sequential regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31(10):1077-84. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Gisbert JP, Fernández-Bermejo M, Molina-Infante J, Pérez-Gallardo B, Prieto-Bermejo AB, Mateos-Rodríguez JM, et al. First-line triple therapy with levofloxacin for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26(3):495-500. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Peedikayil MC, AlSohaibani FI, Alkhenizan AH. Levofloxacin-based first-line therapy versus standard first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e85620. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Keikha M, Askari P, Ghazvini K, Karbalaei M. Levofloxacin-based therapy as an efficient alternative for eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021:S2213-7165(21)00246-0.
23.
Sarkar S, Chakraborty A, Sengupta M, Ghosh S, Mukhopadhyay S, Sen Gupta M. In vitro activity of levofloxacin against lower respiratory tract pathogens. J Basic Clin Pharm. 2015;6(3):89-93. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/53158.16503

Date of Submission: Nov 06, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Jan 08, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Mar 25, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jun 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Nov 08, 2021
• Manual Googling: Mar 25, 2022
• iThenticate Software: May 19, 2022 (15%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com