REJANE MATTAR
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto Central, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico
3 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 3 de 3
- Standard Triple Therapy versus Sequential Therapy in Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Double-Blind, Randomized, and Controlled Trial(2015) EISIG, Jaime Natan; NAVARRO-RODRIGUEZ, Tomas; TEIXEIRA, Ana Cristina Sa; SILVA, Fernando Marcuz; MATTAR, Rejane; CHINZON, Decio; HARO, Christiane; DINIZ, Marcio Augusto; MORAES-FILHO, Joaquim Prado; FASS, Ronnie; BARBUTI, Ricardo CorreaAim. To compare 10-day standard triple therapy versus sequential therapy as first-line treatment in patients infected with H. pylori. Methods. One hundred H. pylori positive patients (diagnosed by rapid urease test and histology), with average age of 47.2, M/F = 28/72, were randomized to receive either standard triple treatment (TT) as follows: lansoprazole 30 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and amoxicillin 1 g, b.i.d. for ten days, or sequential treatment (ST) as follows: lansoprazole 30 mg, amoxicillin and placebo 1.0 g b.i.d for the first five days, followed by lansoprazole 30 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and tinidazole 500 mg b.i.d, for the remaining five days. Eradication rates were determined 60 days after treatment by urease, histology, or C-13-urea breath test. Results. In intention to treat (ITT) analysis, the rate of H. pylori eradication in the TT and ST groups was the same for both regimens as follows: 86% (43/50), 95% CI 93,3 to 73.4%. In Per protocol (PP) analysis, the rate of H. pylori eradication in the TT and ST groups was 87.8% (43/49), 95% CI 94,5 to 75.3% and 89.6% (43/48), 95% CI 95,8 to 77.3%, respectively. Conclusions. In Brazil, standard triple therapy is as equally effective as sequential therapy in eradicating Helicobacter pylori patients. This study was registered under Clinical Trials with number ISRCTN62400496.
- Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of two rapid stool antigen tests using an immunochromatographic assay to detect Helicobacter pylori(2017) SILVA-ETTO, Joyce Matie Kinoshita da; MATTAR, Rejane; VILLARES-LOPES, Cibele Aparecida; MARQUES, Sergio Barbosa; CARRILHO, Flair JoseObjectives: The stool antigen assay for H. pylori infection diagnosis with monoclonal antibodies is a simple and recommended technique by the Maastricht V/Florence consensus report. Recently, Pylori K-Set K-1219 (Coris Bioconcept Sprl, Belgium) and HP-F23 (Symbiosys, Brazil) have been made commercially available in Brazil. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of these two rapid stool antigen tests by immunochromatographic assays (index tests) for the clinical practice. Design and methods: A total of 98 patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and 13C-urea breath test entered the study. H. pylori infection status was defined by the combination of the rapid urease test and the C-13-urea breath test (reference standard). Two observers who were aware of H. pylori status performed the reading of index tests. Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value with 95% confidence intervals, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and kappa index measure of agreement) were determined. Results: The index tests where in perfect agreement with the H. pylori status with kappa values of 0.87 for Pylori K-Set K-1219 and 0.92 for HP-F23. The sensitivity of HP-F23 was 97.9% (IC95%: 87.5-100) and specificity was 93.8% (IC95%; 84-97.2). The positive likelihood ratio was 15.8, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.02. The Pylori K-Set K-1219 had a sensitivity of 87.7% (IC95%: 74.5-94.9) and a specificity of 100% (IC95%: 91.6-100); the positive likelihood ratio was infinity, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.1. The test line on the cassette device of HP-F23 was stronger than of the Pylori K-Set K-1219. Conclusion: The HP-F23 test performed better in clinical practice. Nonetheless, the C-13-urea breath test is more reliable technique. Moreover, caution must be paid to the trace or clear pale test line readings that were observed in false positive and false negative results, leading to incorrect management of the patient.
- Association of a probiotic to a Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen does not increase efficacy or decreases the adverse effects of the treatment: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study(2013) NAVARRO-RODRIGUEZ, Tomas; SILVA, Fernando Marcuz; BARBUTI, Ricardo Correa; MATTAR, Rejane; MORAES-FILHO, Joaquim Prado; OLIVEIRA, Marice Nogueira de; BOGSAN, Cristina S.; CHINZON, Decio; EISIG, Jaime NatanBackground: The treatment for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is complex; full effectiveness is rarely achieved and it has many adverse effects. In developing countries, increased resistance to antibiotics and its cost make eradication more difficult. Probiotics can reduce adverse effects and improve the infection treatment efficacy. If the first-line therapy fails a second-line treatment using tetracycline, furazolidone and proton-pump inhibitors has been effective and low cost in Brazil; however it implies in a lot of adverse effects. The aim of this study was to minimize the adverse effects and increase the eradication rate applying the association of a probiotic compound to second-line therapy regimen. Methods: Patients with peptic ulcer or functional dyspepsia infected by H. pylori were randomized to treatment with the furazolidone, tetracycline and lansoprazole regimen, twice a day for 7 days. In a double-blind study, patients received placebo or a probiotic compound (Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Bifidobacterium bifidum and Streptococcus faecium) in capsules, twice a day for 30 days. A symptom questionnaire was administered in day zero, after completion of antibiotic therapy, after the probiotic use and eight weeks after the end of the treatment. Upper digestive endoscopy, histological assessment, rapid urease test and breath test were performed before and eight weeks after eradication treatment. Results: One hundred and seven patients were enrolled: 21 men with active probiotic and 19 with placebo plus 34 women with active probiotic and 33 with placebo comprising a total of 55 patients with active probiotic and 52 with placebo. Fifty-one patients had peptic ulcer and 56 were diagnosed as functional dyspepsia. The per-protocol eradication rate with active probiotic was 89.8% and with placebo, 85.1% (p = 0.49); per intention to treat, 81.8% and 79.6%, respectively (p = 0.53). The rate of adverse effects at 7 days with the active probiotic was 59.3% and 71.2% with placebo (p = 0.20). At 30 days, it was 44.9% and 60.4%, respectively (p = 0.08). Conclusions: The use of this probiotic compound compared to placebo in the proposed regimen in Brazilian patients with peptic ulcer or functional dyspepsia showed no significant difference in efficacy or adverse effects.