Observational analysis reveals superior eradication rates with bismuth-containing quadruple therapy, indicating better salvage treatment options.
Helicobacter pylori is a pathogen that causes chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer diseases and is a carcinogen responsible for the development of malignancies, including gastric cancer. In the current era of high antimicrobial resistance, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended as a salvage therapy. Bismuth has not only a strong bacteriostatic effect but also a synergic effect when combined with antibiotics. Our study aimed to compare and evaluate the eradication rates between rifabutin-based triple therapy and rifabutin with bismuth-containing quadruple therapy as salvage treatments. In this single-center study, patients who received rifabutin-based triple therapy and rifabutin with bismuth-containing quadruple therapy after failure of conventional therapy, including first- and second-line treatment, between January 2016 and July 2024, were retrospectively investigated. A total of 53 patients who received rifabutin-based triple therapy and 50 who received bismuth-containing quadruple therapy were included. In the rifabutin-based triple therapy group, eradication was achieved in 32 out of 53 patients (60.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 46.8% to 74.0%). In the bismuth-containing quadruple therapy group, eradication was achieved in 40 out of 50 patients (80.0%; 95% CI, 68.5% to 91.5%), demonstrating significant therapeutic benefit (p=0.030). Adverse events, including nausea, epigastric discomfort, and lethargy, were significantly more frequent in the bismuth-containing quadruple therapy group (p=0.007), but they were mild and tolerable enough not to affect compliance (p=0.329). Rifabutin with bismuth-containing quadruple regimen as a salvage treatment achieved significantly superior eradication efficacy over the rifabutin-based triple regimen. Further multicenter prospective studies are needed to provide additional supporting evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: