Role of anti-Helicobacter pylori treatment in H. pylori-positive and cytoprotective drugs in H. pylori-negative, non-ulcer dyspepsia: Results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in Asian Indians

Abstract

Background : The efficacy of anti‐Helicobacter pylori treatment and cytoprotective drugs in H. pylori‐positive and ‐negative non‐ulcer dyspepsia (NUD), respectively, is debatable. Methods : In a randomized study, the efficacy of anti‐H. pylori treatment versus sucralphate was tested in patients with NUD. One hundred and twelve patients with NUD, 62 positive and 50 negative for H. pylori were studied. Of 62 patients positive for H. pylori, 32 were treated with triple therapy (colloidal bismuth subcitrate, tetracycline and metronidazole) for 2 weeks and the remaining 30 were treated with sucralphate (1 g, q.i.d.) for 4 weeks. Of 50 patients negative for H. pylori, 25 each were treated with either sucralphate (1 g, q.i.d.) or ranitidine (150 mg, b.d.) for 4 weeks. Results : In patients with NUD and H. pylori infection, triple therapy eradicated H. pylori in 88% and was superior to sucralphate in producing symptom relief (81 vs 33%, P = 0.0003) and histological improvement in gastritis (73 vs 30%, P = 0.003). In the H. pylori‐negative group, sucralphate was superior to ranitidine with regard to symptom relief (68 vs 36%, P = 0.04) and improvement in gastritis (44 vs 12%, P = 0.09). The symptomatic improvement persisted until 12 weeks after the start of treatment in triple therapy group only. Conclusions : In patients with NUD associated with H. pylori, triple therapy was better than sucralphate in terms of symptomatic and histological improvement. However, sucralphate was superior to ranitidine in providing symptom relief in patients with H. pylori‐negative NUD.