Helicobacter Pylori English 2021

WGO Global Guidelines Helicobacter pylori 1
World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines
Helicobacter pylori
May 2021
Guideline Update Team

Peter Katelaris (Co-Chair, Australia), Richard Hunt (Co-Chair, United Kingdom),
Franco Bazzoli (Italy), Henry Cohen (Uruguay), Kwong Ming Fock (Singapore),
Manik Gemilyan (Armenia), Peter Malfertheiner (Germany), Francis Mégraud (France),
Alejandro Piscoya (Peru), Duc Quach (Vietnam), Nimish Vakil (USA),
Louis G. Vaz Coelho (Brazil), Anton LeMair (Netherlands)
© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

Contents
1 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 4
2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4
3 Natural history, transmission and epidemiology—global aspects ............................................. 5

3.1 Natural history of infection ........................................................................................................ 5
3.2 Transmission of infection ........................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Epidemiology .............................................................................................................................. 6
4 The impact of H. pylori infection and the effect of eradication ................................................. 8

4.1 H. pylori and peptic ulcer disease .............................................................................................. 8
4.2 H. pylori and gastric cancer and MALT lymphoma ..................................................................... 8
4.3 H. pylori–associated dyspepsia ................................................................................................ 10
5 Diagnosis of H. pylori infection ............................................................................................... 10

5.1 Who to test and treat? ............................................................................................................. 10
6 How to test for H. pylori ......................................................................................................... 11

6.1 Endoscopic diagnostic tests ..................................................................................................... 11
6.2 Noninvasive diagnostic tests .................................................................................................... 12
6.3 Testing to assess the outcome after eradication therapy ........................................................ 13
6.4 Diagnostic pathways ................................................................................................................ 13
6.5 Empirical therapy in low-resource regions .............................................................................. 14
7 Treatment of H. pylori infection .............................................................................................. 15
8 Translating treatment principles into therapeutic choices ...................................................... 17

8.1 Choice of first-line eradication therapy.................................................................................... 17
8.1.1 PPI, amoxicillin, clarithromycin triple therapy ................................................................ 17
8.1.2 Bismuth-based quadruple therapies .............................................................................. 19
8.1.3 Nonbismuth quadruple therapies .................................................................................. 19
8.1.4 Levofloxacin triple therapy ............................................................................................. 19
8.2 Choice of second and subsequent eradication therapies ........................................................ 21
8.2.1 Bismuth-based quadruple therapy and levofloxacin triple therapy ............................... 21
8.2.2 Other salvage therapies .................................................................................................. 21
8.3 Treatment choices for patients with penicillin allergy ............................................................. 22
8.4 Treatment pathways ................................................................................................................ 22
8.5 The role of culture .................................................................................................................... 25
8.6 Compliance ............................................................................................................................... 25
8.7 After treatment ........................................................................................................................ 25

9 Regional views for best-practice eradication therapy based on local data and resources ....... 26
9.1 Australia ................................................................................................................................... 26
9.2 Pacific region ............................................................................................................................ 26
9.3 Southeast Asia .......................................................................................................................... 26
9.4 Eurasia ...................................................................................................................................... 27
9.5 Western Europe ....................................................................................................................... 27
9.6 Southern Europe ...................................................................................................................... 27
9.7 North America .......................................................................................................................... 28
9.8 South and Central America ...................................................................................................... 28
10 Abbreviations used in this WGO guideline .............................................................................. 29
11 References .............................................................................................................................. 30
List of tables
Table 1 Global burden of cancer in 2020 ..............................................................................9
Table 2 Indications for treatment of H. pylori infection .................................................10
Table 3 Cascades: Diagnostic tests for H. pylori ................................................................11
Table 4 Key principles guiding the choice of H. pylori eradication therapy ..............15
Table 5 Pooled prevalences of primary and secondary antibiotic resistance ..........17
Table 6 Overview of first-line eradication therapies .......................................................20
Table 7 Triple therapies and quadruple-therapy combinations ...................................21
Table 8 Cascades: Treatment considerations for low-resource regions ....................23
List of figures
Fig. 1 Global prevalence of H. pylori ...................................................................................6
Fig. 2 Prevalence of H. pylori in pediatric patients in Kuala Lumpur .........................7
Fig. 3 Cascades: treatment pathways for low-resource regions ..............................14
Fig. 4 Treatment pathways for H. pylori ..........................................................................24

1 Summary
Helicobacter pylori continues to be a major health problem worldwide, causing considerable
morbidity and mortality due to peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer.
The burden of disease falls disproportionately on less well-resourced populations. As with
most infectious diseases, the greatest impact on reducing this burden comes from
improvements in socioeconomic status, which interrupt transmission. This has been observed
in many regions of the world, but the prevalence of infection remains high in many regions in
which improvements in living standards are slow to occur.
Meanwhile, the optimal clinical management and treatment pathways remain unsettled and
are evolving with changing antimicrobial resistance patterns. Despite decades of research and
clinical practice, major challenges remain. The quest for the most effective, safe, and simple
therapy is still a major issue for clinicians. An effective vaccine also still appears to be
elusive.
Clinical guidelines not infrequently proffer discordant advice. It is very difficult for
guidelines to achieve relevance across a variety of populations with varying spectrums of
disease, antimicrobial resistance rates, and vastly different resources. As local factors are
central to determining the impact and management strategies for H. pylori infection, it is
important for pathways to be based on the best available local knowledge, rather than solely
extrapolated from guidelines formulated in other regions, which may be less applicable. To
this end, this revision of the WGO H. pylori guideline uses a “cascades” approach that seeks
to summarize the principles of management and offer advice for pragmatic, relevant, and
achievable diagnostic and treatment pathways based on established key treatment principles
and using local knowledge and available resources to guide regional practice.
2 Introduction
Helicobacter pylori has been recognized as a major pathogen of humankind for nearly four
decades. However, despite the impact of treatment of infected individuals and the reduced
transmission of infection in communities in which socioeconomic living standards have
improved, it continues to be the most common human bacterial pathogen, infecting perhaps
half of the world’s population [1]. As a result, it is still a major cause of morbidity and
mortality worldwide.
H. pylori infection invariably causes active chronic gastritis. In most people, this may be
clinically silent throughout life, but in a substantial minority it causes gastroduodenal
diseases, most importantly peptic ulcer disease, noncardia gastric cancer, and gastric mucosa-
associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma. It also increases the risk of gastroduodenal
ulceration and bleeding in patients who are taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
(NSAIDs) such as aspirin and is responsible for symptoms in a subset of patients with
functional dyspepsia.
H. pylori has been studied intensively. A literature search reveals more than 45,000
publications. A great deal has been learned about the epidemiology of infection, biology,
genetics, pathophysiology, disease expression, diagnosis, and treatment. However, major gaps
in our knowledge remain. The precise mode of transmission of infection remains unclear,
despite many epidemiological studies that identify risk factors for infection. The determinants
of disease expression are still incompletely understood, including many aspects of the host–
pathogen interaction. The pathophysiology of this interaction is complex and has been
reviewed in detail elsewhere [2,3]. The optimal clinical management pathways in different
settings are still a matter of debate, and refinements in diagnostic modalities continue to be

sought. The quest for the most effective, safe, and simple treatment is still a major issue for
clinicians, and the problem of antimicrobial resistance to therapy is a significant challenge.
The best method for surveillance of adverse histological changes in the gastric mucosa has
not been determined, and the quest for an effective vaccine is ongoing.
There have been many reviews and clinical guidelines on H. pylori [4–12]. As the field is
changing rapidly, there is a need for periodic updating and revision of these position papers.
In addition, it is very difficult for guidelines to achieve relevance across a wide variety of
populations with varying spectrums of disease and often with vastly different resources with
which to deal with it. Guidelines not infrequently proffer discordant advice. As local factors
are central to determining the impact and management strategies for H. pylori infection, this
is not surprising. It is important for clinical advice to be based on the best available local data,
rather than extrapolated from guidelines formulated in other regions, which may be less
applicable. However, in many areas in which the impact of H. pylori infection is greatest,
there is a lack of high-quality data to determine the local best practice. Addressing this gap in
knowledge is a significant challenge. In the meantime, decisions need to be based on the best
available local evidence, extrapolation from higher-quality data from elsewhere, and expert
opinion.
The purpose of this update to the WGO guideline is to summarize and review the evidence
from a number of new guidelines that outline best practice and to suggest how these
principles may be applied around the world using the “cascades” approach. This approach
recognizes variations in the regional prevalence and impact of infection and the vast
differences in health resources available to address the problem, which require pragmatic,
tailored local approaches. The burden of disease wrought by H. pylori falls disproportionately
on less well-resourced regions, which are insufficiently represented in epidemiological
surveys and are often not the focus of clinical guidelines.
Key statement
It is a major challenge for guidelines to achieve relevance across a wide variety of
populations with varying spectrums of disease and with vastly different resources with
which to deal with it.
3 Natural history, transmission and epidemiology—global aspects
3.1 Natural history of infection

H. pylori infection usually persists for life, unless it is treated with antibiotics or
autoeradication occurs when long-standing infection causes widespread gastric mucosal
atrophy and metaplasia with achlorhydria. Transient infection may occur in some infants.
Reinfection after treatment in adults is uncommon in both higher-prevalence and lower-
prevalence regions. Reinfection may be confused with recrudescence, when infection is
suppressed transiently, below the threshold of detection by tests, but has not been eradicated
by antibiotics. There are variations in the virulence of different H. pylori strains globally. The
interplay between host and environmental factors may result in differences in the expression
of disease.
3.2 Transmission of infection

Although there are well-described risk factors for infection, and plausible hypotheses, the
precise mode of transmission has not been definitively established. Most infection appears to
occur in early childhood, with a minority of cases developing in adults. There is strong
evidence from epidemiology and genetic studies of person-to-person transmission,

particularly within families. Mothers appear to be particularly important in transmission to

their young children. Ingestion of the organism seems most plausible via the gastro–oral or
oral–oral route. Fecal–oral transmission appears less likely, at least in developed countries.
Whether transmission occurs via water, food, household pets, or flies is still a matter of
speculation.
3.3 Epidemiology
Although half of the world’s population are thought to be infected with H. pylori, there is
widespread variation in the prevalence of infection, between and within countries (Fig. 1). In
addition, the prevalence may vary within a single city and also between subgroups within a
population (Fig. 2) [13]. For example, there may be wide variations in the prevalence between
more affluent urban populations and rural populations.
Fig. 1 Global prevalence of H. pylori. From Hooi et al. 2017 [1].

Fig. 2 Prevalence of H. pylori among children and young adults in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
From Goh [13].
H. pylori prevalence %
30
26.3
25
20.8
20
16.7
13.3 15
11.8
10
7.6 10
5.1 5.9
5
0
Indian Chinese Malay
0-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-17 yrs
The quality of prevalence data varies. Many studies are not true prevalence studies, but
rather audits of clinical subsets. Other studies may not represent a valid cross-section of the
population. Moreover, there is significant variability in the quality of reports. In some regions,
diagnostic methods may be less reliable, while some countries are poorly represented as they
lack any reliable data at all. For all these reasons, a single figure cannot be taken to
summarize and represent the prevalence of infection in an entire country and must be applied
with caution. For example, a prevalence study from one city in one region of a populous,
multiethnic country with wide variation in socioeconomic standards is unlikely to represent
the true prevalence across the entire country and cannot reflect high-risk and low-risk subsets.
However, countries and regions can usually be characterized as high-prevalence, mid-
prevalence, and low-prevalence locations [1].
The major determinant of the prevalence of infection is socioeconomic status in childhood.
Socioeconomic factors reflect levels of hygiene, sanitation, density of living, and educational
level.
A strong inverse relationship has been consistently reported. Thus, as expected, the
prevalence of infection is generally higher in developing countries, and infection is almost
ubiquitous in some of the most resource-poor subsets of these populations. Migrants from
such regions are recognized as being a high-risk group in more developed, low-prevalence
countries.
Key statement
The major determinant of the prevalence of infection is socioeconomic status in childhood.
The prevalence of H. pylori infection increases with age. This is mostly due to the cohort
effect, in which the risk of acquiring infection was greater during the childhood of those born
longer ago in comparison with more recently, rather than reflecting ongoing adult acquisition.
Ethnicity has been described as a risk factor, but is most likely closely correlated with
socioeconomic status or practices that may increase the risk of transmission, rather than
having a genetic basis.
A striking observation has been the change in the prevalence of infection over time in some
countries. Reports of rapidly falling infection rates, most marked in children and younger
adults, are common from developed countries, and from countries that have undergone rapid

economic development that has led to raised socioeconomic standards. In these countries, the
prevalence of infection is now low.
A gradual fall in the prevalence of peptic ulcer disease and noncardia gastric cancer is
predicted by this observation, since in general the prevalence of peptic ulcer disease and
gastric cancer reflects the prevalence of H. pylori in a population. Indeed, the prevalence of
ulcer disease and gastric cancer have been falling for decades in developed countries. The fall
in disease expression lags behind the fall in infection rates for many years. The declining
prevalence of infection and disease occurred long before H. pylori was recognized and
treatments were developed.
As with most endemic infectious diseases, a decline in prevalence has more to do with
improvements in population hygiene and sanitation than with individual, case-by-case
treatment, since in most countries, only a minority of infected individuals will ever receive
therapy. Notable exceptions are well-resourced high-prevalence countries such as Japan,
where screening and treatment is now done systematically in early adulthood. The prevalence
of infection appears to be stable in countries in which standards have not improved or have
deteriorated, and it is unlikely to fall substantially until improvements do occur. Peptic ulcer
disease is still rampant in many of these countries. The burden of gastric cancer also falls
disproportionately on these populations.
Key statement
As with most endemic infectious diseases, a decline in prevalence has more to do with
improvements in population hygiene and sanitation than with individual, case-by-case
treatment, since in most countries, only a minority of infected individuals will ever receive
therapy.
4 The impact of H. pylori infection and the effect of eradication
4.1 H. pylori and peptic ulcer disease

The recognition that H. pylori was the cause of most duodenal ulcers and about two-thirds of
gastric ulcers was a seminal, Nobel Prize–winning medical breakthrough [14]. In many
developed countries with a decreasing prevalence of infection and cure of ulcer patients, the
proportion of all peptic ulcers due to H. pylori is falling. In less developed countries, where
the prevalence of infection remains high and fewer ulcer sufferers receive curative treatment,
peptic ulcer disease (PUD) continues to be a very common and important condition. H. pylori
infection has been estimated to confer an individual lifetime risk of peptic ulcer disease of
15–20%. Untreated, PUD is a chronic relapsing and remitting disease that causes major
mortality and morbidity due to pain, bleeding, and perforation. It also results in economic
losses. Eradication of H. pylori heals most active peptic ulcers and prevents further relapses,
thus effecting a cure. Eradication of H. pylori in patients with a history of ulcer disease
prevents subsequent relapses.
NSAIDs and aspirin cause most other peptic ulcers. H. pylori and NSAIDs act
synergistically to increase the risk of ulcers and bleeding. Eradication of H. pylori reduces
this risk before the start of chronic NSAID therapy.
4.2 H. pylori and gastric cancer and MALT lymphoma

In susceptible infected hosts, long-standing active chronic gastritis may result in gastric
mucosal atrophy with intestinal metaplasia. In a minority, these premalignant mucosal
changes progress to dysplasia and clinically silent, early cancer, followed by advanced gastric
cancer. Gastric cancer often presents at an advanced, symptomatic stage and it has a generally
poor prognosis. H. pylori has been estimated to confer an individual lifetime risk of gastric

cancer of 1.5–2.0% in infected individuals. Despite the relatively low individual risk, as the
global number of people infected is estimated in the billions, there is a global burden of
gastric cancer of over one million per year, with a high fatality rate (Table 1) [15]. This
burden is not distributed evenly. East Asia—Japan, Korea, and eastern China—has the
highest prevalence of disease. China suffers 40% of world cases of gastric cancer. Most, but
not all, gastric cancers are related to H. pylori. The risk of progression to gastric cancer varies
and is related to host and pathogen factors. Host cofactors include smoking and diet. High salt
intake, the consumption of pickled foods, and diets low in antioxidants are dietary cofactors.
Genetic risk factors in the host that are associated with increased risk include the presence of
polymorphisms in genes that determine the expression of interleukin-1 (IL-1;
proinflammatory cytokines) and pathogen recognition receptors. Genotyping of strains of
H. pylori has revealed differences in virulence factors that promote inflammation and are
associated with an increased risk of cancer.
Table 1 Global burden of cancer in 2020
Most common cancers globally

● Breast (2.26 million cases)
● Lung (2.21 million cases)
● Colon and rectum (1.93 million cases)
● Prostate (1.41 million cases)
● Skin (nonmelanoma) (1.20 million cases)
● Stomach (1.09 million cases)
Most common causes of cancer deaths are cancers of the:

● Lung (1.80 million deaths)
● Colon and rectum (935,000 deaths)
● Liver (830,000 deaths)
● Stomach (769 000 deaths);
● Breast (685 000 deaths)
Source: World Health Organization [15].

Eradication of H. pylori before the occurrence of adverse, precancerous histological
changes has been shown to prevent gastric cancer and is the rationale for mass test-and-treat
screening programs in young adults in countries with a high burden of disease and with
sufficient resources to devote to this endeavor. In less well-resourced regions with a high
burden of gastric cancer, such a strategy remains aspirational rather than feasible, given cost
constraints, logistical difficulties, and competing health-care needs.
Eradicating H. pylori after mucosal atrophy and/or intestinal metaplasia have developed
may reduce the risk of gastric cancer, but does not eliminate it [16]. In any individual, the
residual risk is related to the extent and severity of the mucosal changes, as well as other host
risk factors. Endoscopic surveillance of intestinal metaplasia may be appropriate in some
settings.
Gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma is rare. Most cases are a
consequence of H. pylori infection, and eradication of H. pylori when the lymphoma is at a
low-grade stage results in regression and cure. Late recurrences after eradication have
occasionally been reported.
Key statement

Eradication of H. pylori before the occurrence of adverse, precancerous histological changes

has been shown to prevent gastric cancer and is the rationale for mass test-and-treat
screening programs in young adults in countries with a high burden of disease and with
sufficient resources to devote to this endeavor.
4.3 H. pylori–associated dyspepsia

Most H. pylori gastritis is asymptomatic, but it is commonly associated with upper gut
symptoms in the absence of ulcer disease. However, only about one-third or less of infected
patients with “functional dyspepsia” experience sustained relief of symptoms after eradication
therapy. This is because functional dyspepsia is a heterogeneous condition that may be caused
by different mechanisms. H. pylori may be causal in some patients with symptoms and may
be present incidentally in others. However, the proportion of infected patients who improve
after eradication therapy is greater than those who are given empirical acid-suppressive
therapy. In addition, patients may benefit from a reduced lifetime risk of ulcer disease and
cancer, especially if they are treated before adverse histological changes have developed in
the gastric mucosa.
A recent revised classification of gastritis has recognized H. pylori–associated dyspepsia as
a distinct entity, and it has been incorporated into the 11th revision of the International
Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) [11]. The classification also highlights the significance of
H. pylori gastritis as the precursor lesion that leads to peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer,
irrespective of whether symptoms are present.
H. pylori infection has been associated with a variety of other conditions. In most cases, the
association has not been shown to be causal, and common conditions will inevitably coexist
in some patients. There is modest evidence linking H. pylori to immune thrombocytopenic
purpura, and eradication therapy has been tried, with variable results.
5 Diagnosis of H. pylori infection
5.1 Who to test and treat?

The decision on whether or not to treat H. pylori must be an active one that takes into account
the individual patient’s circumstances and risks. The decision to test for H. pylori should
therefore only be made with therapeutic intent.
Good practice point
The decision to test for H. pylori should only be made with therapeutic intent.
Evidence-based indications for testing for and treating H. pylori are summarized in Table 2
[4,17]. The applicability of each indication in different regions will depend on the prevalence
of infection and disease, resources, competing needs, and individual patient factors. Peptic
ulcer disease is the prime indication in most of the world. The clinical and health-economic
benefits of short-term curative therapy for a common, chronic, important disease have been
amply demonstrated over many years. In resource-poor regions, this indication for therapy
should be prioritized.
Table 2 Indications for treatment of H. pylori infection

• Past or present duodenal and/or gastric ulcer, with or without complications
• Gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma
• Gastric mucosal atrophy and/or intestinal metaplasia
• Following resection of gastric cancer
• Patients who are first-degree relatives of patients with gastric cancer

• Patients’ wishes (after full consultation with their physician)

• Functional dyspepsia
• To reduce the risk of peptic ulcer and upper gastrointestinal bleeding in nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drug-naive users
• Before starting long-term aspirin therapy for patients at high risk for ulcers and ulcer-related
complications
• Patients receiving long-term low-dose aspirin therapy who have a history of upper gastrointestinal
bleeding and perforation
• Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease who require long-term proton-pump inhibitors
• As a strategy for gastric cancer prevention in communities with a high incidence
• Unexplained iron-deficiency anemia, or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
Adapted from Fock et al. 2009 [4]. Note: the strength of indications may vary regionally and
individually.
6 How to test for H. pylori
6.1 Endoscopic diagnostic tests

Diagnostic tests for H. pylori infection may be invasive (endoscopic) or noninvasive
(nonendoscopic) (Table 3). Biopsies taken at endoscopy are most commonly for histological
analysis and urease testing. Biopsies for culture are less often used for diagnosis, unless
antimicrobial resistance testing is available and is needed to aid individual clinical decision-
making or determine population resistance rates. A combination of two testing modalities
taken from two topographic locations in the stomach is generally most effective for diagnosis.
In practice, this usually means biopsies taken from the antrum and body of the stomach for
histology and from the antrum for a urease test. More structured biopsy protocols may be
used when there is an additional need for histological surveillance, as in the Operative Link
on Gastritis Assessment (OLGA) and Operative Link on Gastritis/Intestinal-Metaplasia
Assessment (OLGIM) protocols [18]. Histology is usually costly and very operator-
dependent, and accuracy cannot be assumed except in comparison with other previous testing
modalities.
Table 3 Cascades: Diagnostic tests for H. pylori—relative availability according to high,

intermediate, or low levels of health-care resources
High Intermediate Low
resources resources resources
Endoscopic Histology Widely used Usually used Rarely used
tests
Commercial urease tests Widely used Widely used Rarely used
In-house urease tests Widely used Widely used Widely used
Culture Many centers Major centers Rarely used
PCR: diagnosis/culture Major centers Rarely used Rarely used
Breath tests C14 urea Widely used Usually used Major centers
13
C urea Usually used Major centers Rarely used
Stool tests Stool antigen Usually used Usually used Major centers
Stool PCR Major centers Rarely used Rarely used
Serology Venous Widely used Usually used Usually used

Fingerprick at point of care Usually used Rarely used Rarely used
Clinical assessment Symptoms Widely used Widely used Widely used
PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
In resource-limited regions, reliance on urease tests is common. Most commercial urease

tests appear to be accurate to a sensitivity of about 95%. Although they are much less
expensive than histology, these tests may still incur a significant cost burden in resource-poor
regions, especially when the cost is borne by the patient. A commercial test typically costs
US$ 5. In regions where the average daily income for an unskilled worker may be $1–2, this
may not be affordable. Fortunately, there are very inexpensive generic urease tests that have
been available for many years and can be done on site, with a unit cost of about $0.20. These
are usually unbuffered tests that give a very rapid result and have a sensitivity very similar to
that of commercial tests [19]. They are in use in some countries in Africa, Asia, and the
Pacific region.
Culturing H. pylori from biopsies requires specific transport conditions, laboratory skills,
and equipment. Culture success rates may reach 90% in expert centers, but are often lower
than that in less expert centers. Subculturing for antimicrobial testing may also not always be
successful in less expert laboratories, so that results may not always be obtained when
required. There are now commercially available real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
tests that allow the detection of H. pylori with high levels of sensitivity and specificity, and
also of mutations that cause clarithromycin resistance [20–22]. These tests do not require
strict preanalytic conditions and they can be performed in a few hours. The validation and
implementation of these rapid, inexpensive kit-based point-of-care antimicrobial resistance
tests promises to be a major advance in management. The availability of such tests in regions
of high resistance may greatly aid the choice of therapy for individual patients, while also
facilitating surveys of population prevalence.
Good practice point
The validation and implementation of rapid, inexpensive kit-based PCR diagnostic and
antimicrobial resistance tests promises to be a major advance in management.
Endoscopic diagnosis of duodenal ulcer disease in a higher-prevalence, poorly resourced
region, in a patient who is not taking NSAIDs, has an accuracy of 95% for predicting the
presence of H. pylori. While a biopsy-based test to confirm infection is desirable, the presence
of the duodenal ulcer has a predictive value similar to that of most tests, and so it is
reasonable to treat without incurring further costs (unless inexpensive generic urease tests are
available).
6.2 Noninvasive diagnostic tests

When endoscopy is not required or not available, noninvasive tests may be used. Urea breath
tests (UBTs) are very useful and have higher diagnostic accuracy than other noninvasive tests
for identifying H. pylori (in patients without a history of gastrectomy). Somewhat
surprisingly, these are not widely available in many countries in which H. pylori and peptic
ulcer disease are most common. The reasons for this are complex, and may include a lack of
expertise or resources to set up and operate breath analysis laboratories, the relatively high
cost of commercial kit tests, or overreliance on either empirical therapy or endoscopy. In
many cases, valid anxiety about gastric cancer is a major driver of the use of endoscopy
(although once they become symptomatic, gastric cancers are rarely curable). The costs of
UBTs vary. In higher-resource countries, costs compare very favorably with endoscopy,
although in regions in which endoscopy is relatively inexpensive, the cost advantage
disappears unless low-cost UBTs are available. The stable isotope C13 UBT test has been
validated in detail in multiple locations, and is often preferred in well-resourced regions. The
C14 UBT uses a very low dose of radioactive isotope and usually has a shorter collection time,

but has not been as extensively validated. It may be somewhat less accurate. The laboratory
set-up costs for C13 UBTs are higher, as a mass spectrometer is required, whereas a less
expensive scintillation counter is needed for C14 UBTs. The real (rather than commercial) unit
cost of the C14 isotope is low, so the test could be provided at a very low cost using a central
laboratory “hub and spoke” model for service delivery, with remotely collected breath
samples being delivered from throughout a region. Point-of-care commercial kits and
analyzers are available. The accuracy varies, and the unit cost of these kits is often high.
Stool antigen testing is another option. These tests appear to be almost as accurate as
UBTs, but patients and health-care and laboratory workers often have a lower preference for
stool-based tests. Cost is an issue in some locations. Stool-based rapid PCR tests are also
available [21]. Although these tests face the same acceptance barriers, as well as requiring
laboratory equipment and skills, they have the potential to provide rapid diagnosis and
antimicrobial resistance testing in a single noninvasive test.
Serological antibody tests are commonly available. Although they are useful as
seroepidemiological surveys, these tests often lack the sensitivity and specificity required for
decision-making in individual patients and are generally not very helpful. They need to be
validated for specific locations, and the issue of false results due to cross-reactivity has rarely
been addressed. In a community with moderate H. pylori prevalence, the accuracy of these
tests may not exceed 50%.
6.3 Testing to assess the outcome after eradication therapy

As the success of eradication is very variable, outcome assessment should ideally be done in
all patients, although this may not be feasible universally. Priority should be given to those
who remain at highest risk for harm if the infection is ongoing, such as those who are being
treated for complicated ulcer disease (bleeding or perforation).
Biopsy-based testing may be used to determine the outcome after eradication therapy when
endoscopy is required (to assess gastric ulcer healing and exclude neoplasia, or to survey
adverse histology, for example). Otherwise, noninvasive tests are preferred. UBTs and stool
tests should be done not less than 1 month after the completion of eradication therapy. To
minimize false-negative results, no antibiotics or bismuth compounds should be taken by the
patient for at least a month before testing, and proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use should be
avoided for at least one and preferably two weeks. Serology is not useful for assessing the
outcome, as antibody levels often persist for years after therapy. Despite the widespread
validation of noninvasive diagnostic tests, and of breath tests in particular, they are still not
available at low cost in many places around the world, and this remains a major unmet
clinical need.
6.4 Diagnostic pathways

The choice of diagnostic test depends to a large extent on the clinical context, availability,
expertise, and cost. If all modalities for diagnosis are available, the key issue is whether
endoscopy is required to investigate symptoms or signs of upper gut disease. In low-
prevalence, more developed countries, assessment for gastroesophageal reflux (GERD),
functional dyspepsia, cardia and esophageal cancer concerns are common indications for
endoscopy, and it is usual to biopsy the stomach for H. pylori at that time. H. pylori is still an
issue in such regions, particularly in higher-risk subgroups such as older patients and those
with lower socioeconomic status, or migrants from high-prevalence regions. In these
countries, a noninvasive “test-and-treat” strategy using UBTs have been validated in younger
patients and are cost-effective, although the use of this strategy may be declining. An
empirical trial of PPI therapy is often done in primary care instead, with recourse to
endoscopy if the symptoms are not relieved. Although popular, this is problematic when the
symptoms are not typical of GERD, and the ideal duration of such a treatment trial is unclear.
It may lead to failure to diagnose H. pylori. Although the organism may be incidental to the

presentation, treatment in younger adults is associated with significant long-term risk

reduction. The cost-effectiveness of management strategies for H. pylori in well-resourced,
lower-prevalence countries varies with local health-care costs.
In higher-prevalence countries, there is often a distinct preference by both doctor and
patient for prompt endoscopy, due to the fear of gastric cancer—although as noted, it is not
certain whether this improves survival when patients present with symptoms. For individual
decision-making, the pretest probability of infection, the patient’s age, the nature of
symptoms or signs, and the local prevalence of ulcer disease and gastric cancer must be
considered.
6.5 Empirical therapy in low-resource regions

Where there is very limited access to endoscopic or noninvasive means of diagnosing
H. pylori infection, decision-making must be empirical, based on the clinical setting. Peptic
ulcer disease may be strongly suspected on clinical grounds when there is a clear history of
periodic upper gut pain and/or any earlier or recent history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
In regions in which it is known that the prevalence of H. pylori is high and peptic ulcer
disease is common, it is reasonable to use empirical eradication therapy for the presumptive
clinical diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease (Fig. 3). The cohort so treated will include many
with peptic ulcer disease, who will gain major benefit. It will also include some who have
H. pylori–associated gastritis but no active ulcer. In this group, symptom resolution occurs
more frequently than with the use of any other therapy (commonly PPIs), and importantly,
successful therapy reduces lifelong risks of peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer. Treatment
of both peptic ulcer disease and gastritis has also been shown to be cost-effective.
Fig. 3 Cascades: treatment pathways for upper gastrointestinal symptoms in regions with a high
prevalence of H. pylori and with low health-care resources.
Investigate
Alarm symptoms? YES  (endoscopy or other tests)
as indicated and if available
BETTER

Empirical H. pylori Clinical assessment


eradication therapy of outcome
 Avoid clarithromycin and NOT BETTER

YES  levofloxacin if prior use 
 Ensure full duration and
dose
 Compliance support
Symptoms Case-by-case
suggestive evaluation
of peptic ulcer H. pylori test if available
disease? YES  and affordable
(noninvasive or invasive)
 
Investigate
 Empirical H. pylori eradication
as indicated and if available
therapy
(endoscopy or other tests)
 H. pylori test
 Other strategies

Case-by-case
NO  
Evaluation
Note: Treatment for H. pylori in the context of possible ulcer disease dominates the clinical pathway,
as the clinical and health economic benefits likely exceed those of other strategies.
With empirical symptom-based eradication therapy, there will be a subgroup treated who
are not infected and may have other diagnoses. This group will not benefit from eradication
therapy, and there are costs and the unnecessary use of antibiotics involved, but the likelihood
of major harm is low and the overall benefit to the treated group justifies this approach.
Indeed, the Asia–Pacific Consensus Group on H. pylori has specifically endorsed such an
approach in regions in which H. pylori and peptic ulcer disease are common and many people
have no access to investigations, for either economic or geographic reasons. Empirical use of
PPI therapy is likely to be less beneficial than the initial treatment. Such an approach should
be supported by programs for educating health-care workers to recognize symptoms that are
more likely to be due to ulcer disease and to apply this strategy selectively. In these resource-
poor regions, treating all upper gut symptoms with such an approach is harder to justify.
NSAID use is widespread, and NSAID-related peptic ulcer disease is common and may
coexist with H. pylori infection. In an empirical setting of suspected ulcer disease, when
NSAIDs (including aspirin) are being used, it is reasonable both to treat for H. pylori and to
address the NSAID risk by ceasing the use of these agents and treating the patient with PPIs
for a few weeks after the completion of eradication therapy.
Good practice point
In resource-poor, high-prevalence regions in which diagnostic testing is not available, a
history suggesting chronic ulcer disease—periodic upper gut pain and/or past or present
melena—suggests a high likelihood of H. pylori ulcer disease and justifies empirical
eradication therapy, especially in patients with no history or NSAID or aspirin use.
7 Treatment of H. pylori infection

A vast number of studies have addressed therapy issues, and numerous expert guidelines
recommending choices of therapy are available. However, much of the literature and advice
derives from well-resourced countries, with relatively little coming from the poorly-resourced
countries that bear the major burden of diseases caused by H. pylori. Principles for antibiotic
therapy that apply universally have been established. However, there are key issues that must
be addressed locally in order to determine the best local practice, as antimicrobial resistance
patterns and therefore eradication rates vary regionally [23,24] and other local issues such as
the cost and availability of drugs influence the choice of therapy. The key principles that
guide the choice of eradication therapy are outlined in Table 4.
Table 4 Key principles guiding the choice of H. pylori eradication therapy
1. Randomized controlled treatment trials and meta-analyses provide the highest level of evidence,
but are not available for many regions. Local audits of treatment outcome are useful.
2. Treatment recommendations based on resistance patterns and outcome data from one region
may not be applicable elsewhere, due to variation in resistance rates and other factors.
3. Generating high-quality local data and monitoring antibiotic resistance and treatment outcomes
are priorities.
4. Ad hoc, unproven therapies should be avoided.

5. The main determinant of eradication success is pretreatment antibiotic resistance.

6. Primary resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin varies widely regionally.
7. Major determinants of primary resistance appear to be the magnitude and duration of
community usage of these antibiotics as monotherapy for other indications.
8. Prior personal exposure of a patient to these drugs is likely to result in resistance and increases
the chance of treatment failure.
9. Primary clarithromycin resistance (CR) is reported to have increased in many countries over
relatively few years, while remaining stable in other countries.
10. Primary or secondary resistance to amoxicillin and tetracycline are so rare as to not affect
treatment choices.
11. Since much treatment is given presumptively or after noninvasive H. pylori testing, the choice of
therapy will be based on knowledge of likely local antimicrobial resistance patterns.
12. When endoscopy is carried out, culture is not often done routinely prior to first-line therapy in
most places, but this will vary according to skills, resources, local knowledge of resistance rates,
and outcomes. Ideally, culture should also be used to monitor local resistance trends over time.
13. The availability of rapid, inexpensive, point-of-care PCR antimicrobial resistance testing may
change individual treatment choices and facilitate the surveillance of trends in resistance.
14. Secondary resistance after treatment failure is very common with clarithromycin, metronidazole,
and perhaps levofloxacin.
15. Repeating the same therapy has a low likelihood of success and should be avoided.
16. The choice of second-line and subsequent therapies, if needed, should follow a logical decision
path that involves using the most effective drugs first, avoiding repeating the same therapy, and
using evidence-based choices of subsequent therapies.
17. Culture has a very limited role in determining the choice of salvage therapies.
18. The dosage and duration of therapy will influence outcomes.
19 Treatment should be preceded by an informed consent process that outlines the potential risks
and benefits of therapy to the patient.
20. Compliance is a major modifiable determinant of eradication success and should be supported
with clear verbal and written information.
21. Smoking has an adverse effect on eradication success.
22. Unmodifiable risk factors for treatment failure may include CYP2C19 polymorphisms and the
virulence factors of the organism.
23. The role and value of potassium-competitive acid blockers such as vonoprazan is still emerging.
These drugs are not affected by CYP2C19 polymorphisms and result in more uniform and potent
inhibition of gastric acid secretion.
24. Costs may be minimized by using high-quality generic drugs, especially in resource-poor regions.
25. The drugs required should be on essential drug lists and be widely available.
These key principles must be adapted regionally according to the available resources.

8 Translating treatment principles into therapeutic choices
8.1 Choice of first-line eradication therapy

Application of these principles of therapy will ensure the best outcomes possible. In well-
resourced regions, treatment may be based on high-quality trials and audit and culture data; in
resource-poor regions, reliance on a knowledge of community or personal antibiotic usage
and any local audit of outcomes will influence the use of therapies recommended in
guidelines from elsewhere [4–12].
8.1.1 PPI, amoxicillin, clarithromycin triple therapy

In many parts of the world, triple therapy, comprising a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) with
amoxicillin and clarithromycin (PPI-AC), is still the most commonly used first-line therapy.
This combination was the first very widely recommended therapy and superseded less
effective triple therapies. It has been very well evaluated over the years. The major
determinant of eradication success with this combination is pretreatment clarithromycin
resistance (CR). The prevalence of antibiotic resistance, particularly CR, varies widely around
the world (Table 5). Where clarithromycin has been and is used commonly as monotherapy
for other infections, the level of CR is often high and increasing. There are views that this
therapy should be abandoned in areas where the primary CR rates are known to be 15–20% or
greater, because of the impact this has on eradication rates. A somewhat arbitrary minimum
eradication rate of 80% on an intention-to-treat basis is often quoted as a benchmark for an
acceptable therapy. This is a common eradication rate for PPI-AC in real-world studies in
areas where CR rates are moderate or low (i.e., below 15–20%). Unacceptably lower
eradication results may occur in countries in which the prevalence of CR is higher.
Table 5 Pooled prevalences of primary and secondary antibiotic resistance relative to

World Health Organization region
WHO region Pooled prevalence of antibiotic resistance, % (95% CI)
Africa Clarithromycin Metronidazole Levofloxacin Cla+Met Amoxicillin Tetracycline
Overall 15 (0–30) 91 (87–94) 14 (12–28) – 38 (32–45) 13 (9–17)
Americas Clarithromycin a Metronidazole Levofloxacin Cla+Met Amoxicillin Tetracycline
Primary 10 (4–16) 23 (2–44) 15 (5–16) – 10 (2–19) –
Secondary 18 (13–23) 30 (19–41) 22 (3–42) – 7 (1–13) –
Not specified b – – – 3 (0–13) c – 4 (1–11) c
Overall 14 (9–19) 27 (14–39) 14 (12–28) 3 (0–13) c 8 (3–13) 4 (1–11) c
Eastern Mediterranean Clarithromycin Metronidazole Levofloxacin Cla+Met Amoxicillin Tetracycline
Primary 33 (23–44) 56 (46–66) 19 (10–29) 19 (0–39) 14 (8–20) 10 (4–15)
Secondary 17 (10–27) 65 (54–74) c 30 (14–46) 11 (6–20) 10 (5–18) c 17 (8–26)
Not specified b 25 (17–32) 67 (61–72) – 8 (4–11) 15 (8–22) –
Overall 29 (23–25) 61 (55–67) 23 (14–32) 14 (5–23) 14 (10–18) 10 (8–13)
Europe Clarithromycin a Metronidazole a Levofloxacin a Cla+Met a Amoxicillin Tetracycline
Primary 18 (16–20) 32 (27–36) 11(9–13) 1 (0–2) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0)
Secondary 48 (38–57) 48 (38–58) 19 (14–24) 18 (16–20) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–1)
Not specified b 33 (26–39) 47 (35–39) 14 (10–18) 7 (0–13) 1 (0–2) 1(0–2)
Overall 32 (25–31) 38 (33–42) 14 (12–16) 15 (12–18) 0 (0–0) 0 (0–0)

WHO region Pooled prevalence of antibiotic resistance, % (95% CI)

Southeast Asia Clarithromycin Metronidazole a Levofloxacin a Cla+Met Amoxicillin Tetracycline
Primary 10 (5–16) 51 (26–76) 30 (14–46) – 2 (0–5) 0 (0–1)
Secondary 15 (8–27) c 44 (32–58) c 24 (15–37) – – –
Not specified b 25 (0–55) 80 (57–100) 5 (3–11) 6 (1–10) 28 (0–62) 1 (1–2)
Overall 17 (6–28) 59 (40–78) 25 (13–28) 6 (1–10) 12 (6–17) 0 (0–12)
Western Pacific Clarithromycin a Metronidazole a Levofloxacin Cla+Met a Amoxicillin Tetracycline a
Primary 34 (30–38) 47 (37–57) 22 (17–28) 8 (6–10) 1 (1–1) 2 (1–2)
Secondary 67 (54–80) 62 (50–71) 30 (20–39) 13 (8–18) 1 (1–2) 0 (0–1)
Not specified b 25 (21–29) 69 (64–74) 19 (17–21) 14 (11–18) 1 (1 2) 10 (7–14)
Overall 34 (30–38) 55 (51–59) 24 (21–26) 11 (9–13) 1 (1–1) 2 (1–2)
From Savoldi et al. 2018 [23]. Cla+Met, combined resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole.
Notes: a P value for subgroup comparison < 0.05. b Not specified: the study did not report the type of
resistance. c Only one study contributed to the analysis.
Key statement
The major determinant of eradication success with PPI-AC is pretreatment clarithromycin
resistance.
The optimal duration of therapy is a matter of contention. Recent calls for universal 14-day
PPI-AC therapy usually originate from regions with higher CR. Initial studies were mostly for
7 days, although that duration may have been influenced by registration trial design.
Proponents of the longer duration of therapy point to somewhat higher eradication rates in
systematic reviews. However, there are other considerations that influence the duration of
therapy, particularly in resource-poor countries. Adding a second week of therapy may
increase eradication rates, typically by about 10%. This means that the number of patients
needed to treat with an extra week of therapy in order to achieve one more treatment success
is 10. The price of this higher eradication rate, if achieved, includes a doubling of the cost of
treatment, which is a major issue in resource-poor regions. (It should be noted that the cost of
a week of triple therapy in very resource-poor regions may be as much as weekly earnings for
the lowest paid.) The risk of adverse effects increases considerably with protracted
antibiotics, as does the likelihood of noncompliance. An alternative is to give shorter therapy
where compliance is likely to be greater and adverse effects and costs fewer, with the
understanding that 10% more patients may need a second-line salvage therapy. Overall
antibiotic use will be much lower with the second strategy, as long as first-line eradication
rates are at least moderately high. The longer therapy is usually recommended in some well-
resourced countries, but more modeling of shorter courses in resource poor-regions is needed.
It must also be noted that acceptable eradication rates with 1-week PPI-AC therapy have been
reported from several countries, and the incremental benefit of a longer course has not been
studied. The optimal dosage for the PPI (standard or high dose) and clarithromycin (250 mg
or 500 mg twice daily) has not been determined in most locations. In high CR regions, neither
one nor two weeks of this therapy may achieve acceptable eradication rates. In such places,
the choice for first-line therapy varies.
The role and value of potassium-competitive acid blockers such as vonoprazan in place of
PPIs in any eradication therapy is emerging. These drugs are not affected by CYP2C19
polymorphisms and result in more uniform and potent inhibition of gastric acid secretion [25].

8.1.2 Bismuth-based quadruple therapies

The other core choice for first-line therapy, especially in regions with high primary CR, is still
bismuth-based quadruple therapy. The best-studied regimen involves a PPI, bismuth,
tetracycline, and metronidazole (PPI-BTM). This treatment has stood the test of time, since it
leads to reliable and acceptable eradication rates irrespective of primary metronidazole
resistance (MR), as the addition of a PPI to BTM appears to overcome MR. Good results have
been achieved with 7-day therapy, although there are proponents of longer (10–14-day)
treatments. The major drawbacks of this therapy are the clumsy dosage regimen (as it is
usually dosed four times daily) and common but usually mild adverse effects, which may
impair adherence. Reduced access to bismuth and tetracycline may limit the use of this
treatment in some places. However, when these drugs are not readily available or not
registered, it is often feasible to import generic drugs at low cost, with the permission of the
relevant authorities.
A quadruple therapy substituting amoxicillin for tetracycline (PPI-BAM) has long been
reported and is less used, but may provide acceptable outcomes.
More recently, converting standard PPI-AC triple therapy to a quadruple therapy by adding
bismuth (B+PPI-AC) has been reported, with favorable results in some locations [26]. The
value of this in overcoming CR has yet to be fully determined, but it merits detailed
evaluation.
8.1.3 Nonbismuth quadruple therapies

There are advocates of nonbismuth quadruple therapies—usually meaning the addition of
metronidazole to PPI-AC triple therapy (PPI-ACM). This may increase eradication rates if
MR rates are low or moderate, but is unlikely to be very helpful in the many regions of the
world where primary MR and/or CR are high. Moreover, patients in whom the treatment fails
will often be found to have dual resistance. This type of concomitant therapy has been studied
in well-resourced countries, but rarely in poorly resourced countries. Sequential or hybrid
regimens are less well studied, appear not to offer superior eradication, are clumsy to
prescribe, and pose particular challenges with adherence. As a result, they are not
recommended.
Where metronidazole sensitivity is known from testing in a patient, PPI-AM may be used
as a first-line treatment with reasonable outcomes. It is also suitable in locations where MR is
known to be low in the population.
8.1.4 Levofloxacin triple therapy

Levofloxacin triple therapy (PPI, amoxicillin and levofloxacin, PPI-AL for 10–14 days) has
been used in first-line therapy when levofloxacin resistance (LR) is known or presumed to be
low, but the combination has not been studied extensively in this role, with most reports
relating to second-line therapy. Reports of high levofloxacin resistance rates in some
countries will limit the usefulness of this therapy in these locations. The treatment is generally
well tolerated. There have been recent concerns about the risks of fluoroquinolone use. With
levofloxacin, this is related to the rare risk of tendinitis or myositis. The precise prevalence of
this adverse effect is not well documented, but it appears more common in the elderly and
those with inflammatory arthritis or renal impairment and is best avoided in these high-risk
subgroups if alternatives exist. A higher dose of levofloxacin and possibly high-dose PPI may
be associated with superior eradication success. Moxifloxacin, a related quinolone, has also
been used. It has been less studied and has a broader spectrum of activity, so is generally not
preferred over levofloxacin.
There are a number of other less well studied treatments that have nonetheless been
recommended in various reviews. Furazolidone, for example, has been used in locations

where CR and LR are high, but quality data attesting to its value are meager in comparison
with established therapies, and its precise role remains to be defined.
When antimicrobial resistance by culture or rapid PCR testing is used, tailored therapy may
be prescribed to individual patients. This is likely to have the most value in regions of higher
primary CR, to allow avoidance of clarithromycin use in first-line therapy. Validation and
acceptance of stool-based PCR testing offers the prospect of extending this benefit to primary
care and in circumstances in which endoscopy is not required or accessible.
Tables 6 and 7 provide an overview and summary of first-line treatment regimens and their
composition.
Table 6 Overview of first-line eradication therapies

Therapy Application Success Dose and duration
PPI-AC Widespread, when primary CR is Major determinant is 7–14 days
low primary CR Standard or high-
dose PPI
PPI-BTM, Widespread, where available Reliable and acceptable 7–14 days
PPI-BAM Useful when high primary CR eradication rates Standard or high-
irrespective of primary MR dose PPI
Reduced access may limit use in
some places Adherence may be Metronidazole
challenging > 1500 mg/day
preferable
B+PPI-AC Few data Early data encouraging Usually 14 days
May help when CR high
PPI-ACM Limited in high CR and MR regions May increase eradication Varies
if low MR
PPI-AL May be used first-line when LR is Effective when LR low For 10–14 days
low especially if CR high, but most Standard or high-
reports are for second-line therapy dose PPI
PPI-AM In low MR regions or when there is Low if MR high 7–14 days
known sensitivity Standard or high-
dose PPI
PPI-AR Usually used third- or fourth-line, if Moderate Varies
at all Risk of neutropenia an
issue
PPI-A Usually used third- or fourth-line, if Moderate Both in higher dose
at all and longer duration
Other If there is local evidence of efficacy, Usually low Varies
but usually little data
A, amoxicillin; B, bismuth; C, clarithromycin; L, levofloxacin; M, metronidazole; PPI, proton-pump

inhibitor; R, rifabutin; T, tetracycline.

Table 7 Triple therapies and quadruple-therapy combinations—typical composition,

dosage, and duration
Triple therapies 1 2 3
All twice daily PPI Amoxicillin 1 g Clarithromycin 500 mg
for 7–14 days
PPI Metronidazole Clarithromycin 500 mg
400 mg
PPI Amoxicillin 1 g Metronidazole 400 mg
All twice daily PPI Amoxicillin 1 g Levofloxacin 500 mg

for 10–14 days
All twice daily PPI Amoxicillin 1 g Rifabutin 150 mg

for 7–10 days
Quadruple therapies 1 2 3 4
For 7–14 days PPI Bismuth 120 mg Metronidazole 400– Tetracycline 500 mg
twice daily four times daily 500 mg three times four times daily
daily
(Amoxicillin 500–1000 mg three times daily has been substituted for tetracycline)
All twice daily Bismuth PPI Amoxicillin 1 g Clarithromycin
for 7–14 days 240 mg 500 mg
Note: Published dosages and durations vary; see text.
8.2 Choice of second and subsequent eradication therapies

Second-line or salvage therapies after the failure of first-line eradication have been well
studied in some locations, but there is a complete lack of data for many resource-poor regions
[4–12].
8.2.1 Bismuth-based quadruple therapy and levofloxacin triple therapy

The most commonly studied and used second-line therapies include standard bismuth-based
quadruple therapy for 7–14 days and levofloxacin triple therapy for 10–14 days, as described
above. Both have been shown to achieve eradication rates above 80%. The choice between
the two depends on whether or not there is knowledge of local primary levofloxacin
resistance rates, availability, experience, adherence, and cost. A longer duration of therapy
(i.e., 14 days) is often recommended, but data on local outcomes, costs and adherence are
needed. When these treatments fail, the other therapy is the usual third choice. In experienced
centers, overall eradication rates with judiciously chosen therapies after first-line failure
should approach 98% after up to three treatments.
8.2.2 Other salvage therapies

Other salvage therapies that have been used include a rifabutin-based triple therapy (PPI-AR).
It is generally less effective, and the risk of significant neutropenia may be as high as 1%,
which tends to limit its use. It is usually avoided in regions with a high prevalence of
tuberculosis. High-dose dual PPI with amoxicillin therapy (PPI-A) has been used with some
success. Nonbismuth quadruple therapies are generally ineffective as salvage therapies, due to
secondary CR and MR. Where metronidazole sensitivity is known after testing, PPI-AM may
be used as a second-line treatment with reasonable outcomes, but it is generally not used for

second-line therapy empirically. Furazolidone has been used and is recommended as a

component of therapy in some regions. There are few high-quality eradication studies that
include this drug, and there is a dearth of randomized trials. Concern about its safety and use
has led to it becoming unavailable in the United States and the European Union.
When appropriate treatment pathways have been followed and therapy has failed, ad hoc
therapies at the whim of the prescriber should be avoided, and ongoing infection should be
accepted unless subspecialty expertise or a clinical trial is available. In some patients—such
as those with relapsing ulcer disease—eradication failure may result in a need for
maintenance antisecretory therapy.
8.3 Treatment choices for patients with penicillin allergy

For patients with penicillin allergy, metronidazole may be substituted for amoxicillin and
combined with a PPI and clarithromycin (PPI-MC). However, primary MR reduces the
efficacy of this. Bismuth quadruple therapy is a very good alternative (PPI-BTM). If both of
these therapies fail, there are limited further options. In patients who have a remote, uncertain,
or unlikely history of penicillin allergy and when resources are available, formal assessment
for type 1 penicillin allergy may be done. This involves measurement of penicillin antibodies,
followed by skin-prick testing and if negative, a supervised oral challenge. When this is
carried out in lower-risk patients, up to 80% of such patients have been shown not to be
allergic to penicillin, and they may be treated safely with amoxicillin-containing therapies as
required (usually PPI-AL or PPI-AC if clarithromycin was not used initially). Such a strategy
has been shown to allow successful eradication therapy in most patients. Where there is a
clear history of a type 1 reaction previously, allergy is assumed, and testing is not indicated.
8.4 Treatment pathways

In summary, in well-resourced regions in which local rates of CR and MR (and sometimes
LR) are known, the evidence-based treatment choice in regions with lower CR is usually PPI-
AC as the first line, with PPI-BTM or PPI-AL therapies as the second and third line, in either
order. In regions with higher levels of CR, PPI-BTM may be used. B+PPI-AC or PPI-AL may
be alternative first-line therapies. Second-line choices depend on what was used first: PPI-
BTM or PPI-AL may be used if not used previously.
In resource-poor regions in which community CR and MR have not been established or are
known to be high, the choice of therapy is based on empirical audits of outcomes, an
individual patient’s personal history of antibiotic exposure as monotherapy, known levels of
community use of such drugs, availability and cost (Table 8). PPI-AC is still widely chosen
with PPI-BTM or PPI-AL, or even nonbismuth quadruple therapies as alternative first-line or
salvage therapies. However, when it is known that first-line therapy with clarithromycin
results in poor outcomes, one of the other therapies described may be preferred. Data on the
rates of levofloxacin resistance are sorely needed, as LR appears to be common in many
regions, and the quality of some published data are uncertain. PPI-BTM quadruple therapy is
therefore likely to be a good first and subsequent choice, as it avoids the issue of poor
outcomes due to resistance. However, its use is sometimes limited by availability,
compliance, and adverse effects. Whichever therapeutic pathway is chosen, it is crucial not to
repeat the same therapy, as this is a very low-value strategy after first-line failure, due to
secondary antibiotic resistance. The success rate for eradication with PPI-AC, for example,
may be 80% or more in first-line treatment, but as low as 8% when the treatment is repeated
after the first line has failed. Most of this is attributable to secondary CR. This practice is
unfortunately still widespread in some places, but should be discouraged. Lastly, patients’
access to inexpensive generic medications and medical education continue to be significant
challenges that need to be overcome in many regions.
An appropriate pathway for choosing therapy is outlined in Fig. 4.

Table 8 Cascades: Treatment considerations when local resistance rates are not well
defined, individual patient testing is not available, and there are low resources
First–line therapies
• PPI-AC In regions where clarithromycin If prior clarithromycin use in monotherapy
resistance rate is thought to be or combination, assume resistance and
low or moderate (< 20%) avoid in first-line therapy
7-day minimum duration, likely higher
eradication success with 10–14 days
(consider costs)
Use quality generic drugs to minimize costs
Encourage compliance with full course
• Quadruple therapy In regions where clarithromycin Avoid PPI-AC first-line
resistance rates are likely > 20%
Quadruple therapy overcomes MR;
unaffected by CR
May be more difficult to take and
“nuisance”; adverse effects are common
Encourage compliance with full course
Generic drugs may be less expensive than
triple therapy
• PPI-AC or quadruple In regions with unknown Avoid clarithromycin if past personal
therapies clarithromycin resistance rates patient exposure
PPI-AC otherwise a reasonable choice
Quadruple therapy also a good option
Second–line therapies
• Quadruple therapy After failure of clarithromycin- Avoid repeating the same treatment
• Levofloxacin triple containing regimen Avoid using clarithromycin again, as
therapy secondary resistance will be high and
eradication success very low
Levofloxacin triple therapy a good option if
no prior personal exposure and resistance
thought to be low or moderate
• Clarithromycin or After failure of quadruple therapy Check compliance
levofloxacin triple Levofloxacin preferred if likely high CR
therapy region or past personal exposure
A, amoxicillin; C, clarithromycin; CR, clarithromycin resistance; MR, metronidazole resistance; PPI,

proton-pump inhibitor.

Fig. 4 Treatment pathways for H. pylori. Adapted from Fallone et al. 2019 [8].
H. pylori

Allergic to penicillin?  YES  PBMT or PMC if low CR

Previous macrolide exposure?  YES  PBMT

NO Known CS?

or
CR < 15%?
NO   YES
or
   
PBMT Local proven
preferred eradication
PAMC when dual > 85% with PMC
preferred resistance to PPI triple PAC if MR
if bismuth is metronidazole therapy? low
not available and
clarithromycin is
suspected
IF FAILS IF FAILS
 
PAL a PAL PBMT PAL PAL
SALVAGE
IF FAILS
    
PBMT PBMT
HDDT
HDDT PAL PBMT HDDT
PAR
PAR PAR
IF FAILS

HDDT
PAR
A, amoxicillin; B, bismuth; C, clarithromycin; CR, clarithromycin resistance; CS, clarithromycin
sensitivity; HDDT, high-dose dual therapy; L, levofloxacin; M, metronidazole; MR, metronidazole
resistance; P/PPI, proton-pump inhibitor; PAC, clarithromycin-based PPI triple therapy with
amoxicillin; PAL, levofloxacin-based therapy; PAMC, concomitant nonbismuth quadruple therapy;
PAR, rifabutin-containing triple therapy; PBMT, bismuth quadruple therapy; PMC, clarithromycin-
based PPI triple therapy with metronidazole; R, rifabutin; T, tetracycline.
a
Given the increasing resistance to levofloxacin in certain areas, susceptibility testing is
recommended if available before using PAL.

8.5 The role of culture

Surveying H. pylori resistance patterns in order to define population prevalence and changes
in prevalence will guide treatment choices. In some well-resourced countries, it is possible to
tailor therapy on the basis of individual antimicrobial sensitivity testing of endoscopic
biopsies prior to treatment. This is not the norm in clinical practice, however, and in any case,
culture and subculture for resistance testing may fail in less expert laboratories. Moreover,
much treatment is given in primary care, where noninvasive testing and treating is conducted.
After treatment failure, antibiotic sensitivity testing from cultured biopsies is unlikely to play
a major role in clinical decision-making. If clarithromycin has been used and failed,
secondary CR is so common as to make testing for it unhelpful, and a different therapy should
be chosen. Assessing MR is occasionally useful if PPI-AM might be an option, but it does not
influence the choice of PPI-BTM, as that therapy is unaffected by MR. Levofloxacin is used
empirically in most regions in which the prevalence of LR is known to be low. In addition,
the in vitro sensitivity of H. pylori to other antibiotics does not imply therapeutic success, and
ad hoc regimens should not be designed in this way.
If inexpensive point-of-care biopsy (or stool-based) molecular techniques (PCR) become
widely available for rapid assessment of resistance, these may change practice by having a
major impact on treatment selection. It is possible that such tests could replace urease tests by
confirming the presence of infection and providing rapid antimicrobial resistance data to
guide individualized therapy, at a cost only a little more than the current commercial urease
tests. Stool-based tests would make it possible to carry out treatment tailored to the individual
patient’s antimicrobial sensitivity in primary care, without the need for endoscopy.
8.6 Compliance
Whichever therapy is prescribed, every effort must be made to maximize compliance. This
means that the prescriber has to spend time with the patient to explain the importance of
taking all of the therapy and not interrupting treatment. This is particularly important in
regions in which regulations governing antibiotic use may be lax or not enforced, and where
antibiotics can be obtained over the counter from pharmacies. Patients may buy drugs in small
quantities for a day or two, with a risk of nonpersistence if symptoms are not immediately
relieved or if any adverse effects occur. Clearly, the whole course of therapy should be
prescribed and dispensed at the onset. Nuisance adverse effects—such as a transient taste
disturbance, which is common with clarithromycin and metronidazole—should be anticipated
and explained so that their occurrence does not lead to cessation of therapy. Providing printed
material for dosage support and information has been found to be useful. As cigarette
smoking is known to be an adverse predictive factor for the outcome, stopping smoking
before and during therapy may improve outcomes, although this has not been well studied.
Smoking cessation also aids ulcer healing. A role for probiotics in reducing adverse effects
(and possibly improving outcomes) has been claimed, but this needs more and better-quality
evidence.
Good practice point
Patients should always be advised that successful eradication depends on compliance with
the treatment. Time should be taken to counsel the patient, explaining how to take the
multidrug therapy and anticipating adverse side effects. The need to complete the
treatment should be emphasized. Written or pictorial information may also aid compliance.
8.7 After treatment

Ideally, outcome assessment should be carried out in all treated patients, although in practice
this is not available in many places. When endoscopy has been conducted initially and gastric
atrophy and/or intestinal metaplasia was identified, a decision needs to be made about
endoscopic mucosal surveillance [27]. This may benefit individual patients, but an overall

reduction in the mortality due to gastric cancer has yet to be clearly demonstrated. When focal
high-grade gastric mucosal dysplasia is found, the areas may be removed endoscopically, but
more advanced neoplasia requires surgery. Dysplasia may be detected using enhanced
imaging, or by mapping biopsy specimens without discrete endoscopically visible lesions.
These patients require endoscopic reassessment, preferably with image-enhanced and
magnifying endoscopy, within 6 months for high-grade dysplasia and 12 months for low-
grade dysplasia.
As atrophy and intestinal metaplasia are common, endoscopic surveillance will consume
considerable endoscopy resources and will have an opportunity cost against other health-care
needs. Generally only higher risk-individuals are therefore usually offered surveillance. High
risk usually means the presence of more extensive gastric mucosal changes (involving the
antrum and body of the stomach) and/or a family history of gastric cancer. The ideal strategy
has yet to be determined. Accurate endoscopic detection and characterization of mucosal
changes requires specific training and modern endoscopes, as well as skilled pathologists.
9 Regional views for best-practice eradication therapy based on

local data and resources
9.1 Australia
Low rates of clarithromycin resistance (6–8%) and high rates of metronidazole resistance
(45–50%) have been reported in Australia. Data on levofloxacin are sparse, but primary
resistance seems to be very low, with the possible exception of rates in migrants from high-
resistance regions. As a result, standard triple therapy with PPI, amoxicillin, and
clarithromycin is still the recommended first-line therapy, unless and until evidence of rising
clarithromycin resistance emerges. Reported 7-day eradication rates are 80–87%. Fourteen-
day therapy has not been studied formally. Salvage therapies include levofloxacin triple
therapy for 10 days (eradication rate 80–90%) and standard-dose quadruple therapy (PPI,
bismuth, tetracycline, and metronidazole) for 7–14 days, with similar outcomes.
Levofloxacin, tetracycline, and bismuth are not registered locally, so are not often used in
first-line therapy. These drugs have to be obtained via a special-access scheme from abroad,
or via compounding pharmacies, when required for salvage treatments. Rifabutin triple
therapy has been used less commonly (76% eradication). Concomitant therapies have not
been studied locally.
9.2 Pacific region

There is currently a lack of local resistance data, and there are few systematic data for
assessing the outcome of therapy. The choice of therapy is therefore usually extrapolated
from international guidelines and determined by drug availability. Clarithromycin triple
therapy is commonly chosen, with PPI and amoxicillin or metronidazole, despite a clinical
suspicion of high MR affecting the efficacy of the latter. Cost, availability, local expertise,
and adherence to therapy are all barriers to effective treatment. There are no audited salvage
therapy data. Ad hoc therapies and repeat clarithromycin therapy after first-line failure are
discouraged.
9.3 Southeast Asia

There is good evidence that amoxicillin and tetracycline resistance is low and stable (< 5%),
but MR is generally high (30–100%). CR has been increasing, but varies significantly across
Southeast Asian countries (ranging from 2% to 43%). For most regimens, a 14-day duration
should be used unless there is local evidence to prove reliable eradication rates with shorter

duration. Ideally, first-line regimens should be considered on the basis of local antibiotic
resistance rates, due to the wide range of antibiotic resistance across countries. PPI-BTM has
been reported consistently to have a success rate of > 90%. Second-line regimens should
contain antibiotics not used previously, or those against which resistance is unlikely to
develop, such as amoxicillin or tetracycline. PPI-BTM should be considered if it has not yet
been used. Rifabutin should not be considered in regions with a high prevalence of
Mycobacterium tuberculosis. If eradication treatment fails after a second attempt, antibiotic
susceptibility tests should be considered.
9.4 Eurasia
On the basis of a pilot study, the prevalence of H. pylori seropositivity among healthy adults
in Armenia is 41.5%, increasing with age (13.6% in the 18–25-year-old age group and 83.3%
in those aged over 65). The rate of resistance to clarithromycin in 2018 was as low as 3.6%,
and to fluoroquinolones 12.8%. However, new research is warranted, especially during the
COVID-19 pandemic when there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of
prescriptions for macrolides and respiratory fluoroquinolones by primary-care providers in
the country. Tetracycline is only available in 100-mg tablets, making conventional quadruple
regimen highly inconvenient. Local recommendations that are adapted from the Maastricht
guidelines propose 14-day clarithromycin triple therapy as the first-line treatment and a
modified bismuth quadruple therapy (PPI, bismuth, amoxicillin, and metronidazole) as an
alternative first-line therapy. Second-line options include triple or quadruple treatment with
levofloxacin. None of the eradication regimens has been studied locally for efficacy.
9.5 Western Europe

CR is highly relevant for the selection of first-line therapy. This varies among and within
European countries. Monitoring of antibiotic resistance is therefore still essential at the
population level. Recent European registry data, from > 30,000 patients in 27 countries [28],
indicated pretreatment resistance rates of 23% for clarithromycin, 32% for metronidazole, and
dual resistance in 13%. There is a dichotomy, with lower CR in central and northern Europe;
in Germany, primary CR is still below the cut-off level of 15%. Triple therapy with
amoxicillin and clarithromycin for 14 days is still effective in these conditions and is
commonly used as first-line treatment. In areas where primary CR is > 15%, bismuth
quadruple treatments for 10 days (or 14 days if components of this regimen are administered
individually) is recommended as first-line treatment. Concomitant therapy, which includes
three antibiotics instead of the two used in the bismuth-based quadruple treatment, is
unpopular in most countries. Metronidazole in PPI triple therapies has been mostly abandoned
and is now reserved for individual cases (e.g., in cases of amoxicillin allergy or proven
susceptibility to metronidazole).
Increasing resistance to levofloxacin has excluded this antibiotic as a component in any
first-line regimen. Its use is becoming increasingly worrisome, even if it is used as second-
line treatment. Rifabutin is effective in third-line treatment and is recommended as a
component of a rescue regimen after repeated treatment failure.
European recommendations put the emphasis on testing (13C-UBT) for assessing the
individual treatment response. Resistance testing of the commonly used antibiotics is
encouraged after treatment failures.
9.6 Southern Europe

Rising antibiotic resistance is the main issue. Pretreatment antibiotic susceptibility for
clarithromycin should be determined before first-line treatment, but is not currently feasible
for most patients. The choice of treatment is therefore based on the local prevalence of CR.
However, this information is lacking in most regions of Italy; high prevalence (30%) has been

reported in some central and southern regions. A 10- or 14-day bismuth-based quadruple
therapy or nonbismuth concomitant quadruple therapy is recommended as the first-line
treatment when CR is > 15% or unknown. The efficacy of these two regimens is not affected
by CR or MR, and bismuth-based quadruple therapy performs well when there is dual
resistance. Thus, bismuth quadruple therapy may be considered the best choice for empirical
first-line treatment in Italy.
The standard triple therapy—PPI plus clarithromycin and amoxicillin or
metronidazole/tinidazole—is effective in clarithromycin-sensitive strains, but fails when there
is CR. A 14-day standard triple therapy should be used as the first-line treatment only in areas
with a known low prevalence of CR (< 15%), in patients without previous use of macrolides,
or in areas where this regimen has been proven to achieve high eradication rates.
Sequential therapy, with PPI plus amoxicillin for 5–7 days followed by PPI plus
metronidazole and clarithromycin for 5–7 days, is a regimen designed to overcome the issue
of clarithromycin resistance. However, data concerning its efficacy are contradictory. Recent
guidelines have discouraged its use, despite some reports from Italy of eradication rates
around 90%, even with CR. Second-line treatments include levofloxacin-containing triple
therapy and bismuth quadruple therapy. Probiotic supplementation may be used in order to
reduce antibiotic-related adverse events.
9.7 North America

North America has variable clarithromycin resistance (17–32% in different studies) and high
metronidazole resistance (44%). Amoxicillin resistance was reported to be 6% in a recent
study, and rifabutin resistance was 0%. U.S. guidelines recommend that for first-line
treatment, clarithromycin triple therapy should be confined to patients with no previous
history of macrolide exposure who live in areas in which clarithromycin resistance against
H. pylori isolates is known to be low. Some suburban and rural areas of the country meet
these criteria. First-line treatment with bismuth quadruple therapy or concomitant therapy
consisting of a PPI, clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and metronidazole is recommended as first-
line therapy in most areas. A combination of rifabutin, amoxicillin, and omeprazole has been
approved for H. pylori treatment in the United States. Its role in initial therapy remains to be
determined.
9.8 South and Central America

Studies on clarithromycin resistance in South and Central America remain sparse, with some
reported rates already exceeding 20%. The highest prevalences are described in Mexico,
Colombia, Argentina, and Brazil. The indiscriminate use of azithromycin (a low-cost drug)
may select macrolide-resistant mutants and aggravate CR rates. Low resistance rates for
amoxicillin have been documented, but some studies show a high percentage in Brazil. If this
trend is confirmed, it would be an alarming situation, due to the central role of these antibiotic
therapies.
The classic triple regimen with PPI, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin for 7–14 days is still
the most widely used regimen, followed by bismuth quadruple therapy as an alternative or
second-line therapy and levofloxacin-based therapy as a salvage option. Resistance to
levofloxacin is reported to be scarce, but high levels have been described in Peru. The
associated use of metronidazole is common for first-line quadruple therapy, but the reported
prevalence of resistance is above 50% in Central America, Mexico, and in some countries in
South America such as Brazil and Colombia.
Recurrence rates of more than 3–5% per annum, with geographic variability, have been
reported; data are lacking from many regions. Barriers that need to be overcome include the
cost of medication, improving adherence to guidelines by physicians, a lack of UBTs in many
regions, unavailability of bismuth salts, furazolidone, and rifabutin in some countries, and an

absence of high-quality local studies to validate anti-H. pylori regimens. Most health-care
systems in the region are still operating suboptimally on these issues.
10 Abbreviations used in this WGO guideline
A amoxicillin
B bismuth
B+PPI-AC bismuth with PPI, amoxicillin and clarithromycin
C clarithromycin
CI confidence interval(s)
CR clarithromycin resistance
CS clarithromycin sensitivity
GERD gastroesophageal reflux disease
HDDT high-dose dual therapy
ICD International Classification of Diseases
IL interleukin
L levofloxacin
LR levofloxacin resistance
M metronidazole
MALT mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue
MR metronidazole resistance
NSAID nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug
OLGA Operative Link on Gastritis Assessment
OLGIM Operative Link on Gastritis/Intestinal-Metaplasia Assessment
PAC clarithromycin-based PPI triple therapy with amoxicillin
PAL levofloxacin-based therapy
PAMC concomitant nonbismuth quadruple therapy
PAR rifabutin-containing triple therapy
PBMT bismuth quadruple therapy
PCR polymerase chain reaction
PMC clarithromycin-based PPI triple therapy with metronidazole
PPI proton-pump inhibitor
PPI-A PPI with amoxicillin
PPI-AC PPI with amoxicillin and clarithromycin
PPI-ACM PPI with amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and metronidazole
PPI-AL PPI with amoxicillin and levofloxacin
PPI-AM PPI with amoxicillin and metronidazole
PPI-AR PPI with amoxicillin and rifabutin

PPI-BAM PPI with bismuth, amoxicillin, and metronidazole

PPI-BTM PPI with bismuth, tetracycline, and metronidazole
PPI-MC PPI with metronidazole and clarithromycin
PUD peptic ulcer disease
R rifabutin
T tetracycline
UBT urea breath test
WGO World Gastroenterology Organisation
WHO World Health Organization
11 References
1. Hooi JKY, Lai WY, Ng WK, Suen MMY, Underwood FE, Tanyingoh D, et al. Global
prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gastroenterology. 2017 Aug 1;153(2):420–9.
2. Kusters JG, van Vliet AHM, Kuipers EJ. Pathogenesis of Helicobacter pylori infection. Clin
Microbiol Rev. 2006 Jul;19(3):449–90.
3. Chmiela M, Kupcinskas J. Review: pathogenesis of Helicobacter pylori infection. Helicobacter.
2019 Sep;24 Suppl 1:e12638.
4. Fock KM, Katelaris P, Sugano K, Ang TL, Hunt R, Talley NJ, et al. Second Asia-Pacific
consensus guidelines for Helicobacter pylori infection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009
Oct;24(10):1587–600.
5. Mahachai V, Vilaichone R-K, Pittayanon R, Rojborwonwitaya J, Leelakusolvong S,
Maneerattanaporn M, et al. Helicobacter pylori management in ASEAN: the Bangkok consensus
report. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jan;33(1):37–56.
6. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, Gisbert JP, Kuipers EJ, Axon AT, et al.
Management of Helicobacter pylori infection—the Maastricht V/Florence Consensus Report.
Gut. 2017;66(1):6–30.
7. Coelho LGV, Marinho JR, Genta R, Ribeiro LT, Passos M do CF, Zaterka S, et al. IVth
Brazilian consensus conference on Helicobacter pylori infection. Arq Gastroenterol [Internet].
2018 Apr 16 [cited 2018 May 10]; Available from:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-
28032018005001101&lng=en&tlng=en
8. Fallone CA, Chiba N, van Zanten SV, Fischbach L, Gisbert JP, Hunt RH, et al. The Toronto
consensus for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in adults. Gastroenterology. 2016
Jul;151(1):51-69.e14.
9. Mitchell H, Katelaris P. Epidemiology, clinical impacts and current clinical management of
Helicobacter pylori infection. Med J Aust. 2016 Jun 6;204(10):376–80.
10. Chey WD, Leontiadis GI, Howden CW, Moss SF. ACG clinical guideline: treatment of
Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb;112(2):212–39.
11. Sugano K, Tack J, Kuipers EJ, Graham DY, El-Omar EM, Miura S, et al. Kyoto global
consensus report on Helicobacter pylori gastritis. Gut. 2015 Sep;64(9):1353–67.
12. Liu WZ, Xie Y, Lu H, Cheng H, Zeng ZR, Zhou LY, et al. Fifth Chinese National Consensus
Report on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Helicobacter. 2018
Apr;23(2):e12475.

13. Goh K-L. Lessons learnt from the epidemiology of Helicobacter pylori infection in Malaysia:
JGHF Marshall and Warren Lecture 2017. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun;33(6):1177–84.
14. Warren JR, Marshall B. Unidentified curved bacilli on gastric epithelium in active chronic
gastritis. Lancet Lond Engl. 1983;1(8336):1273–5.
15. World Health Organization. Cancer [Internet]. [cited 2021 Feb 20]. Available from:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer
16. Ford AC, Yuan Y, Forman D, Hunt R, Moayyedi P. Helicobacter pylori eradication for the
prevention of gastric neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 6;7:CD005583.
17. Lazebnik LB, Bordin DS, Mikheeva OM, Belousova NL. [Eradication efficiency and
Helicobacter pylori resistance to antibiotics in anticipation of IV TH Maastricht consensus issues
publication. Editorial]. Exp Clin Gastroenterol. 2011;8:3–7.
18. Rugge M, Meggio A, Pennelli G, Piscioli F, Giacomelli L, De Pretis G, et al. Gastritis staging in
clinical practice: the OLGA staging system. Gut. 2007 May;56(5):631–6.
19. Katelaris PH, Lowe DG, Norbu P, Farthing MJ. Field evaluation of a rapid, simple and
inexpensive urease test for the detection of Helicobacter pylori. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1992
Dec;7(6):569–71.
20. Li Y, Lv T, He C, Wang H, Cram DS, Zhou L, et al. Evaluation of multiplex ARMS-PCR for
detection of Helicobacter pylori mutations conferring resistance to clarithromycin and
levofloxacin. Gut Pathog. 2020;12:35.
21. Pichon M, Pichard B, Barrioz T, Plouzeau C, Croquet V, Fotsing G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of
a noninvasive test for detection of Helicobacter pylori and resistance to clarithromycin in stool
by the Amplidiag H. pylori+clarir real-time PCR assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Mar 25;58(4).
22. Jehanne Q, Bénéjat L, Mégraud F, Bessède E, Lehours P. Evaluation of the Allplex TM H pylori
and ClariR PCR assay for Helicobacter pylori detection on gastric biopsies. Helicobacter. 2020
Aug;25(4):e12702.
23. Savoldi A, Carrara E, Graham DY, Conti M, Tacconelli E. Prevalence of antibiotic resistance in
Helicobacter pylori: a systematic review and meta-analysis in World Health Organization
regions. Gastroenterology. 2018 Nov 1;155(5):1372-1382.e17.
24. Vilaichone RK, Quach DT, Yamaoka Y, Sugano K, Mahachai V. Prevalence and pattern of
antibiotic resistant strains of Helicobacter pylori infection in ASEAN. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev.
2018 May 26;19(5):1411–3.
25. Kiyotoki S, Nishikawa J, Sakaida I. Efficacy of vonoprazan for Helicobacter pylori eradication.
Intern Med Tokyo Jpn. 2020 Jan 15;59(2):153–61.
26. McNicholl AG, Bordin DS, Lucendo A, Fadeenko G, Fernandez MC, Voynovan I, et al.
Combination of bismuth and standard triple therapy eradicates Helicobacter pylori infection in
more than 90% of patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jan;18(1):89–98.
27. Dinis-Ribeiro M, Areia M, de Vries AC, Marcos-Pinto R, Monteiro-Soares M, O’Connor A, et
al. Management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS): guideline from
the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter Study
Group (EHSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and the Sociedade Portuguesa de
Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED). Endoscopy. 2012 Jan;44(1):74–94.
28. Nyssen OP, Bordin D, Tepes B, Pérez-Aisa Á, Vaira D, Caldas M, et al. European Registry on
Helicobacter pylori management (Hp-EuReg): patterns and trends in first-line empirical
eradication prescription and outcomes of 5 years and 21 533 patients. Gut. 2021 Jan;70(1):40–54.

Helicobacter Pylori English 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Helicobacter Pylori English 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Helicobacter Pylori English 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WGO Global Guidelines Helicobacter pylori 1

World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines

Guideline Update Team

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

3 Natural history, transmission and epidemiology—global aspects ............................................. 5

4 The impact of H. pylori infection and the effect of eradication ................................................. 8

5 Diagnosis of H. pylori infection ............................................................................................... 10

6 How to test for H. pylori ......................................................................................................... 11

7 Treatment of H. pylori infection .............................................................................................. 15

8 Translating treatment principles into therapeutic choices ...................................................... 17

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

10 Abbreviations used in this WGO guideline .............................................................................. 29

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

3 Natural history, transmission and epidemiology—global aspects

3.1 Natural history of infection

3.2 Transmission of infection

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

particularly within families. Mothers appear to be particularly important in transmission to

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

0-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-17 yrs

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

4 The impact of H. pylori infection and the effect of eradication

4.1 H. pylori and peptic ulcer disease

4.2 H. pylori and gastric cancer and MALT lymphoma

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

Table 1 Global burden of cancer in 2020

Most common cancers globally

Most common causes of cancer deaths are cancers of the:

Source: World Health Organization [15].

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

Eradication of H. pylori before the occurrence of adverse, precancerous histological changes

4.3 H. pylori–associated dyspepsia

5 Diagnosis of H. pylori infection

5.1 Who to test and treat?

Table 2 Indications for treatment of H. pylori infection

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

• Patients’ wishes (after full consultation with their physician)

6 How to test for H. pylori

6.1 Endoscopic diagnostic tests

Table 3 Cascades: Diagnostic tests for H. pylori—relative availability according to high,

Serology Venous Widely used Usually used Usually used

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

Fingerprick at point of care Usually used Rarely used Rarely used

Clinical assessment Symptoms Widely used Widely used Widely used

PCR, polymerase chain reaction.

In resource-limited regions, reliance on urease tests is common. Most commercial urease

6.2 Noninvasive diagnostic tests

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

6.3 Testing to assess the outcome after eradication therapy

6.4 Diagnostic pathways

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

presentation, treatment in younger adults is associated with significant long-term risk

6.5 Empirical therapy in low-resource regions

Empirical H. pylori Clinical assessment

 Avoid clarithromycin and NOT BETTER

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021

7 Treatment of H. pylori infection

Table 4 Key principles guiding the choice of H. pylori eradication therapy

© World Gastroenterology Organisation, 2021