PDF | https://doi.org/10.46613/congastro2023-95
This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0
Reyes D1, Remes J2, Laudanno O3, Otero W4, Piscoya A5, Ramírez J6, Otoya G7, Campos C8, Medel P1, Latorre G1, Chahuan J1, Arenas A9, Candia R1, Mansilla R10, Vargas J1, Hanna I11, Cano A2, Bosques F12, Coss E13, Velarde J14, Pérez A14, Félix F14, Morel E14, Higuera F15, Velasco Y15, Motola M15, González M16, Olalde Á16, Raña R17, Flores Á18, Ochoa L18, Gómez O19, Yamamoto J20, Valdovinos L20, Juárez E21, Guirao R21, Bretón G21, Ortiz N22, Ruiz E23, Icaza M24, Pizarro M1, Binder M1, Bustamante M1, Dukes E1, Martinez F1, Silva F1, Marulanda H4, Otero L25, Otero E25, Trespalacios A26, Ahumarán G27, Bedini O28, Rodriguez P29, Ustares F30, Moreno J8, Fuentes E1, Cano-Català A31, Moreira L32, P. Nyssen O33, P. Gisbert J33, Riquelme A1
1Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
2Institute of Medical-Biological Research, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz, México
3Medical Research Institute Doctor Alfredo Lanari, Buenos Aires, Argentina
4Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
5Guillermo Kaelin de la Fuente Hospital, EsSalud, Lima, Perú
6Clínica Liga Contra el Cáncer, Lima, Perú
7Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen Hospital, Lima, Perú
8Hospital Clínica Bíblica, San José, Costa Rica
9Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana-Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
10Facultad de Medicina y Ciencia, Universidad San Sebastián, sede Patagonia, Puerto Montt, Chile
11Hospital Alcívar, Guayaquil, Ecuador
12Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México
13Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, CDMX, México
14Hospital Civil de Guadalajara Fray Antonio Alcalde, Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, México
15Hospital General de México, CDMX, México
16Instituto de Seguridad Social del Estado de México y Municipios (ISSEMyM), Toluca, Estado de México, México
17Hospital Español de México, CDMX, México
18ISSTECALI, Mexicali, Baja California, México
19Hospital Ángeles Puebla, Puebla, México
20Hospital Medica Sur, CDMX, México
21Hospital Juárez de México, CDMX, México
22UMAE, CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, CDMX, México
23Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, CDMX, México
24Hospital Faro del Mayab, Mérida, Yucatán, México
25Centro de Gastroenterología y Endoscopía, Bogotá, Colombia
26Facultad de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia
27Clínica Monte Grande, Buenos Aires, Argentina
28Centro de Endoscopía Digestiva, Rosario, Argentina
29Instituto Modelo Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
30Sanatorio Lavalle, Jujuy, Argentina
31Endoscopy and Surgery (GOES) research group, Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, 08243, Manresa, España
32Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, España
33Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IIS-Princesa), UAM and CIBERehd, Madrid, España
Background: There is limited information regarding the best approach for Helicobacter pylori(H.pylori) management in Latin America.
Objectives: Describe the H. pylori diagnostic tests and indications of treatment in Latin America.
Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, international registry (Hp-LATAMReg) was conducted. Information about therapies used by gastroenterologists in six countries (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru) from 2015 to 2023 was registered in an e-CRF AEG-REDCap database. The most frequent indications for treatment and diagnostic tests before and after eradication treatment were described.
Results: 1,378 patients were registered, of which 933 (68%) were female. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 53 (14) years. 524 patients (38%) were from Mexico, 210 patients (15%) from Argentina, 210 (15%) from Chile, 200 (14%) from Colombia, 176 (13%) from Peru and 58 (4.2%) from Costa Rica. 1218 (89%) were treatment naïve. The most frequent indication for treatment were non-investigated dyspepsia (n=526, 38%) and dyspepsia with normal endoscopy (n=334, 24%). The main H. pylori diagnostic methods before the eradication treatment were: histology (n=905, 67%), rapid urease test (RUT) (n=196, 14%) and 13C urea breath test (UBT) (n=180, 13%). To assess post-treatment eradication, the most frequent H. pylori diagnostics test used were: stool antigen (SA) monoclonal test (n=530, 39%), 13C UBT (n=400, 29%) and 14C UBT (n=215, 16%). There were statistical differences between the countries regarding the indication for treatment and the diagnostics methods before and after the eradication therapy (Table 1).
Conclusions: In Latin America, there was marked heterogeneity between the countries regarding the main indications of treatment and the most frequently used diagnostics tests for H. pylori infection. It is necessary a consensus on the management of H. pylori infection in Latin America.
