Introduction

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is the most prevalent infection worldwide, affecting more than half of the global population. It is the primary cause of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, and gastric cancer. Currently, most H. pylori eradication treatments are prescribed in Primary Care settings and are highly heterogeneous. However, the effectiveness of these treatments in real-world Primary Care settings remains suboptimal. Therefore, evaluating their effectiveness is essential to ensure optimal patient outcomes.

Aims & Methods

To assess the effectiveness of the different eradication treatment combinations prescribed in Primary Care, we conducted an epidemiological cohort study using data from BIFAP, a Spanish healthcare database containing real-world data on the clinical practice of Primary Care physicians.
A cohort study was conducted using real-world data from patients aged ≥18 years with a recorded H. pylori infection and a concomitant treatment prescription between 2003 and 2023. Treatment regimens were based on guideline-based recommendations compiled from Spanish and European Consensus Conferences between 1997 and 2022. Validated algorithms identified H. pylori infections and treatment patterns. Effectiveness was assessed based on stool antigen or breath test results documented within 12 months following treatment completion. A validation process was conducted to confirm the accuracy of laboratory test records through a manual review of a random sample of electronic health records. Effectiveness comparisons among treatments were made using Pearson’s c² test. A logistic regression was conducted to adjust for clinical factors associated with the success of each treatment combination. First-line treatment effectiveness was compared with that of the European Registry on H. pylori Management (Hp-EuReg) to contrast Primary and Specialised (Gastroenterologists) Care.

Results

A total of 211,972 patients with a recorded H. pylori infection, and, at least, one prescribed treatment pattern, were identified. Of these, 30,693 subjects (14%) met the criteria for inclusion in the effectiveness analysis. The median age was 55 years (IQR, 44–66), and 65% were women. The most frequently prescribed first-line regimen in both Primary and Specialised Care was proton pump inhibitor plus a single-capsule with bismuth, tetracycline and metronidazole (Pylera^®) (PPI+ScBQT). Pearson’s c² test confirmed significant (p < 0.01) differences in eradication rates among the regimens. PPI+ScBQT had the highest eradication rate (91%), followed by PPI + clarithromycin (C) + amoxicillin (A) + metronidazole (M) (88%), PPI+C+A (70%), and PPI+C+M (61%). The results aligned with data from Specialised care in the context of the Hp-EuReg. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess treatment effectiveness adjusted for relevant covariates, including age, sex, obesity, history of peptic ulcer, chronic kidney disease, and smoking status. After adjustment, PPI+ScBQT was confirmed as the most effective option, with significantly higher odds of eradication compared to the other regimens. The adjusted odds ratios (AOR) [95% confidence intervals] were: 0·15 [0·13–0·19] compared to PPI+C+M; 0·23 [0·21–0·24] compared to PPI+C+A; and 0·72 [0·66–0·79] compared to PPI+C+A+M.

Conclusion

In the Primary Care setting, single-capsule bismuth quadruple therapy showed the highest effectiveness, followed by non-bismuth concomitant quadruple therapy (PPI+C+A+M). These results were consistent with those reported in the Gastroenterology setting.

Disclosure

Javier P. Gisbert has served as speaker, consultant, and advisory member for or has received research funding from: Mayoly, Allergan/Abbvie, Diasorin, Richen, Juvisé and Biocodex.
Olga P. Nyssen received research funding from: Mayoly, Allergan/Abbvie, Richen, Juvisé and Biocodex.

Introduction

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection in Europe is predominantly due to zoonotic genotype 3, transmitted via undercooked pork, game or shellfish (1,2). In the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District (HUS), 70 laboratory-confirmed cases occurred from 2020–2024, with a pronounced peak in early 2024 (3). Seroprevalence in high-income countries ranges from ~6 % to > 50 %, increasing with age and swine exposure (1,2). While most infections are asymptomatic or mild, patients with underlying liver diseases may have more severe outcomes. Diagnosis relies on anti-HEV IgM/IgG serology and PCR detection of viral RNA (4).

Aims & Methods

Objective of this study is to investigate the epidemiology of hepatitis E virus (HEV), its clinical manifestations, and factors associated with hospitalization in the Helsinki University Hospital (HUS) area between 2020 and 2024. We conducted a retrospective registry study including all patients diagnosed with hepatitis E in the HUS area from January 2020 to December 2024. Data were collected from the electronic health record system, the laboratory database, and the shared contact-tracing software of the HUS Epidemiology Unit and Uusimaa welfare regions. Variables analyzed comprised demographic data, symptoms at presentation, key laboratory parameters (ALT, bilirubin, C-reactive protein), probable sources of infection, and details of hospitalization episodes.

Results

Study population: 70 patients (median age 58 years [IQR 45–67]; 58.6 % male).
Clinical manifestations: 92.2 % were symptomatic. The most frequent symptoms were fatigue (55.9 %), abdominal pain (47.5 %), nausea (45.8 %), and jaundice (42.6 %).
Laboratory findings: Median peak ALT was 1 153 U/L (IQR 544–1 538); median peak bilirubin 39 μmol/L (IQR 17–79); median peak CRP 22 mg/L (IQR 11–32).
Genotypes: Of 19 genotyped cases, 3c (21.1 %), 3e (21.1 %), and 3f (57.9 %), with genotype 3f predominant.
Infection sources: Cold-smoked sausages (e.g., mettwurst) were implicated in most domestic cases (69.6 % of identified sources), especially during the early 2024 outbreak. Other identified sources were unspecified meat products (6.5 %), berries (6.5 %), contact with wild animals (e.g., hunting, 4.3 %), blood transfusion (4.3 %), pork meat (4.3%), and game meat (4.3%).
Hospitalization: 50.7 % required ≥1 night of inpatient care. Hospitalized patients were older, had higher ALT, bilirubin, and CRP values, and more comorbidities than outpatients.
Predictors of hospital stay: In a multivariable zero-inflated negative binomial model, higher peak CRP was independently associated with longer hospital stay (β = 0.02; p = 0.005).

Conclusion

The early-2024 surge of HEV cases in the HUS area represents an internationally rare, large genotype 3 outbreak. Cold-smoked meat products were identified as the principal transmission route, although infections linked to blood transfusions, consumption of raw berries, and wildlife contact also occurred. Cases were disproportionately concentrated in men over 50 years of age. Among hospitalized patients, peak CRP emerged as the strongest predictor of inpatient care, and both mortality and incidence of hepatic insufficiency were relatively high given high sanitation standards in Finland. Further multicenter, inter-regional studies are needed to establish statistically robust risk factors for severe outcomes and to guide clinical and public health interventions.

References

1. Luo Q, Chen J, Zhang Y, Xu W, Liu Y, Xie C, ym. Viral hepatitis E: Clinical manifestations, treatment, and prevention. Liver Res. maaliskuuta 2024;8(1):11–21.
2. Hartl J, Otto B, Madden RG, Webb G, Woolson KL, Kriston L, ym. Hepatitis E Seroprevalence in Europe: A Meta-Analysis. Viruses. 6. elokuuta 2016;8(8):211.
3. THL. Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos. 2024 [referenced: 13. lokakuuta 2024]. Hepatiitti E-tapausten esiintyvyys Suomessa – THL. Available: https://thl.fi/aiheet/infektiotaudit-ja-rokotukset/taudit-ja-torjunta/taudit-ja-taudinaiheuttajat-a-o/hepatiitti-e/hepatiitti-e-tapausten-esiintyvyys-suomessa
4. Dalton HR, Kamar N, Baylis SA, Moradpour D, Wedemeyer H, Negro F. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on hepatitis E virus infection. J Hepatol. kesäkuuta 2018;68(6):1256–71.

Introduction

Although national guidance on the management of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection in the UK is reviewed regularly, the recommendations on treatment and follow-up are not aligned with guidance in the rest of Europe. This is mainly due to the issue that there are no up to date data available on H. pylori prevalence or primary resistance to drugs usually used in eradication regimens.

Aims & Methods

Aim of this study was to analyse the current UK practice on H. pylori management to highlight areas that warrant improvement. UK data collected at AEG-REDCap e-CRF until January 2025 from the European Registry on H. pylori management (Hp-EuReg) were analysed. Modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed and the Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of categorical data (significance for p<0.05).

Results

Data on 462 patients from 3 different centres across the UK was analysed. The mean age of the patients was 55 years (SD 16 years). The indication to test for H. pylori was non-investigated dyspepsia in 47%, dyspepsia with normal endoscopy in 21%, iron deficiency anaemia in 10%, duodenal ulcer in 9.7%, gastric ulcer in 6.9%, and gastric preneoplastic conditions in 1.3%. Of the 257 patients for whom data on regular concurrent medication was available, 222 (87%) took proton pump inhibitors (PPI) daily. Standard triple therapy regimens were given in 97.6% with 90.9% of these having undergone a 7-day regimen, 1.7% a 10-day regimen and 7.4% a 14-day regimen. Most commonly prescribed regimens were amoxicillin-clarithromycin-PPI (75.5%), amoxicillin-metronidazole-PPI (11.1%) and clarithromycin-metronidazole-PPI (9.1%). In the majority of cases, PPI was prescribed at low dose (76%); standard dose was given in 21%, and high dose in 3% of patients. The incidence of at least one adverse event due to treatment was reported in 31% of cases. Tests to confirm eradication success were done in 85% of patients, with practice varying between the different sites (p<0.001). This was also confirmed for the length of prescribed treatment (p<0.001) and the PPI dose used (p<0.001). Eradication was successful in 71% in the mITT analysis, and in 71% of the PP analysis. Patients treated for 7 days showed treatment success in 70% in the mITT analysis, and 69.4% in the PP analysis, compared to 93% (both mITT and PP) in those treated for 14 days (p<0.01). Adverse events were associated with reduced eradication treatment success (mITT: 62 vs 76%; PP: 63 vs 76%; p<0.01). The effect was more pronounced for compliance, with only 5 patients having reported not to have completed >90% of their course of treatment (PP: 29% vs 80%, p<0.05). Second-line treatment was documented for 109 patients, with 20 different regimens having been prescribed. The overall mITT success of second-line treatment was 48.5%.

Conclusion

Clarithromycin-based triple therapy remains the standard in the UK, despite a treatment failure of ≈30%. While adherence to national British or European guidelines on treatment duration and PPI dosage varies by centre, this does not uniformly affect treatment success. Despite British guidance advocating to assess treatment success based on symptom response, eradication was confirmed in the majority of patients. A review of national guidance on H. pylori management in the UK is required, along with efforts to generate national data on prevalence and resistance patterns.

Disclosure

JB: Advisory fee by Flynn Pharma LTD UK and Juvise Pharmaceuticals France
OPN: Speaker fee or research funding from Allergan, Mayoly Spindler, Richen, Biocodex and Juvisé.
JPG: Speaker or consultancy fees, advisory board member or research funding form Mayoly, Allergan/Abbvie, Diasorin, Richen, Juvisé, Biocodex.
IB, MCS, ACC, PP, LM, FM, COM, and PP have no conflict of interest to declare.

Introduction

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a well-recognized gastric carcinogen. However, whether this infection is related to colorectal polyps and colorectal cancer remains debatable. Data from some recent studies have indicated a significant association between H. pylori infection and the development of colorectal polyps or cancer. Potential effects of H. pylori on the colorectal mucosa include the induction of inflammatory responses, alteration of gut flora, and the release of toxins.
The aim was to investigate the association between H.pylori infection and colorectal polyps.

Aims & Methods

We retrospectively included patients diagnosed with colorectal polyps who underwent H. pylori testing between September 2024 and March 2025. Patients with incomplete colonoscopies were excluded. Demographic, clinical, and endoscopic data were subsequently collected. Polyp subtypes and dysplasia grades were extracted from histopathology reports. Screening for H. pylori infection was performed on gastric biopsies. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (H. pylori-negative) and Group 2 (H. pylori-positive). The number, size, location, and pathological type of colorectal polyps were compared between the two groups.

Results

One hundred thirty patients were included, with a male-to-female sex ratio of 3.2. The mean age was 56.3 ± 11.23 years. The main comorbidities were diabetes (33.1%), dyslipidemia (26.9%), and hypertension (25.4%). The locations of colorectal polyps varied: 18.5% in the rectum, 17.7% in the sigmoid colon, 8.5% in the left colon, 7.7% in the transverse colon, 16.9% in the right colon, and 30.8% of patients had polyps in multiple locations. A total of 219 polyps were identified, with a mean of 2.16 polyps per patient and a mean size of 5.9 mm (range: 2–30 mm).
Histopathological examination revealed predominantly hyperplastic polyps (36.9%), low-grade dysplastic adenomas (48.5%), high-grade dysplastic adenomas (7.7%), and adenocarcinomas (6.9%). The prevalence of H. pylori infection was 31.5%.
Statistical analyses showed that the H. pylori-positive group had a significantly higher proportion of colorectal polyps with sizes ≥10 mm (55.6% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.027) and multiple polyps (≥5) (56.3% vs. 43.8%, p = 0.04) compared to the H. pylori-negative group. However, neither dysplasia grading nor polyp localization was significantly associated with H. pylori infection.

Conclusion

In our study, H. pylori infection was associated with an increased risk of large and multiple colorectal polyps. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to better understand the impact of H. pylori eradication on the occurrence of colorectal polyps, as well as its tumorigenic effects on the colorectal mucosa.

Introduction

Endoscopic drainage is standard of care in malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).

Aims & Methods

The aim of this study was to investigate efficacy of biliary stenting in providing access to systemic chemotherapy. Patients with biliary obstruction (bilirubin >2.5 mg/dl) caused by unresectable biliary or pancreatic cancer were retrospectively analyzed with respect to use of chemotherapy and survival. Laboratory data were analyzed at baseline, 7-10 and 28-35 days following biliary stenting.

Results

Patients with MBO (n=78) were allocated into one of three groups according to bilirubin level [mg/dl] 2.5 – 5.99 (group 1), 6.0 - 15.0 (group 2) and >15 (group 3). On first blood testing mean bilirubin declines from baseline in respective groups were: 1.19 (29.5%), 3.77 (38.5%) and 7.1 (27.3%), and on second measurement 1.61 (40%), 5.69 (58.2%) and 13.0 (50%). Chemotherapy was applied in 28 (35.8%) patients, less frequently in group 3 than in group 1 (31.2% vs 44.0%; p =0.07) and group 2 (vs 38.1%; p =0.06). Mean survival time was 4.8 ±2.8 months and was significantly shorter in group 3 as compared to group 2 (3.8 ±2.0 vs 6.2 ±3.9 months; p =0.02) and to group 1 (vs 5.4 ±2.7 months; p =0.03).

Conclusion

In two-thirds of patients with MBO endoscopic biliary drainage does not grant access to chemotherapy. Use of chemotherapy and survival time are significantly higher in patients with bilirubin level below 15 mg/dl as compared to those with greater bilirubinemia, but in patients with bilirubin level below 6 mg/dl the biliary drainage is minimally effective.

Disclosure

No.

Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide and the fourth leading cause of cancer death. In Colombia, it ranks third in incidence and first in mortality, with a 5-year survival below 25% in advanced stages. Early detection relies on identifying premalignant lesions. OLGA and OLGIM histological staging systems enable risk stratification. While stages III–IV are known high-risk states, the role of stage II remains unclear. This study focuses on OLGA II to address this gap.

Aims & Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis, registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024549931), adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The primary objective was to determine whether OLGA stage II confers a statistically significant risk of GC compared to stages 0–I. Secondary objectives included evaluating risks across all advanced stages (II–IV) and contrasting OLGA versus OLGIM staging.
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane up to 31 May 2024 using terms including "OLGA", "OLGIM", "gastric cancer", and "gastric intraepithelial neoplasia". Inclusion criteria covered cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies reporting GC incidence stratified by OLGA/OLGIM stage. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with evidence certainty assessed via GRADE. Meta-analytical synthesis used random-effects modelling, and heterogeneity was assessed with I² and Tau² statistics.

Results

Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 13 cohort, 11 case-control, and 4 cross-sectional studies.

• OLGA II vs 0–I (Cross-sectional studies): A significantly increased GC risk was observed (Z = 3.14; P = 0.002; I² = 65%), suggesting OLGA II as an early but meaningful predictor of malignant transformation.
• OLGA II (Cohort studies): No statistically significant difference was found (P = 0.28; I² = 0%), though sample size was limited.
• OLGIM II: Demonstrated increased risk only in case-control settings (Z = 11.26; P < 0.00001), but not in cohort studies.

Findings for OLGA and OLGIM stages III–IV corroborated existing evidence of elevated risk. However, this is the first meta-analysis to demonstrate a potential oncogenic risk beginning at OLGA stage II, particularly evident in cross-sectional data.
Sensitivity analyses affirmed result consistency, and the certainty of evidence was rated moderate. Subgroup comparisons revealed that OLGA may outperform OLGIM in early risk discrimination.

Table 1. Summary of Gastric Cancer Risk According to OLGA and OLGIM Stages

Staging System	Stage	Study Design	Pooled Risk Estimate	95% CI	Heterogeneity (I²)	Significance (p-value)
OLGA	II vs 0–I	Cross-sectional	OR 2.34	1.36 – 4.02	65%	0.002
OLGA	II vs 0–I	Cohort	RR 1.20	0.85 – 1.69	0%	0.28
OLGA	III–IV vs 0–II	Case-control & Cohort	OR 4.87 / RR 3.12	–	88%	< 0.00001
OLGIM	II vs 0–I	Case-control	OR 1.95	1.52 – 2.50	0%	< 0.00001
OLGIM	II vs 0–I	Cohort	RR 1.10	0.85 – 1.42	0%	0.74
OLGIM	III–IV vs 0–II	Case-control & Cohort	OR 3.89 / RR 2.91	–	82%	< 0.00001

Abbreviations: OR = Odds Ratio; RR = Risk Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval

Conclusion

Our study highlights a pivotal finding: OLGA stage II—previously considered an intermediate state—emerges as a statistically significant risk factor for gastric cancer. These findings suggest that the progression to malignancy may begin earlier than currently recognised. Incorporating OLGA II into surveillance strategies could lead to improved early detection, especially in high-incidence countries. The data support a shift toward broader inclusion criteria for endoscopic follow-up and reinforce the clinical utility of histological staging in GC prevention frameworks.

References

• Yue H, Shan L, Bin L, Shi L. The OLGA and OLGIM staging systems are useful for assessing the gastric cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21(4):579–87. doi:10.1007/s10120-017-0779-4
• Rugge M, Genta RM, Zambon CF, et al. OLGA staging for gastritis: a tutorial. Dig Liver Dis. 2008;40(9):650–8. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2008.02.020
• Rugge M, Meggio A, Pennelli G, et al. Gastritis staging in the endoscopic follow-up for the secondary prevention of gastric cancer: a 5-year prospective study of 1755 patients. Gut. 2019;68(3):477–84. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315252
• Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Marcos-Pinto R, et al. Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS II): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group, European Society of Pathology, and Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva guidelines update 2019. Endoscopy. 2019;51(4):365–88. doi:10.1055/a-0859-0574
• Correa P. Human gastric carcinogenesis: a multistep and multifactorial process—First American Cancer Society Award Lecture on Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. Cancer Res. 1992;52(24):6735–40.

Introduction

Common bile duct (CBD) stones are one of the most frequent indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopic complete sphincterotomy (EST) followed by balloon or basket extraction is widely considered the gold standard technique for the treatment of CBD stones; being successful in more than 90% of cases with approximately 5% overall rate of adverse events [1]. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) is an effective technique in treating large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, the efficacy and safety of EPLBD in the setting of periampullary diverticula (PAD) are prospectively lacking.

Aims & Methods

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and short-term safety of EPLBD after limited sphincterotomy with those of EST for extracting large CBD stones in the setting of PAD prospectively. Forty-eight patients with large CBD stone(s) > 1 cm were recruited. All patients had a PAD. Before the procedure patients were evaluated by history taking, clinical examination full investigations including proper imaging studies. During the procedure, patients were randomized to either group I; patients treated with EPLBD after limited sphincterotomy, and group II; patients treated with EST. CBD clearance was defined as a single procedure (EPLBD vs EST), single session (no repeat ERCP), and non-assisted (no lithotripsy used) stone extraction. After the procedure patients were hospitalized with clinical, laboratory, and imaging assessment.

Results

Table 1: Univariate regression of the parameters affecting stone extraction

PAD: periampullary diverticulum			* significant as P value≤ 0.05
	Odds ratio	95% CI	P value​
The used technique	5.92	1.32 to 25.3	0.009∗
Stone (s) number	0.62	0.17 to 2.25	0.468
Stone (s) diameter (mm)	2.59	0.63 to 10.56	0.187
Type of PAD​	1.32	0.65 to 2.67	0.437

The overall stone extraction rate in the current study was only 77.3% (n=34). The efficacy of stone extraction was significantly higher in the EPLBD (n= 21,87.5%) group compared to EST (n= 13, 54.17%) group (p = 0.011). The procedure-related adverse events were lower in the EPLBD group compared to the EST group. Pancreatitis was significantly higher in the EST (n=14, 58.33%) group than in the EPLBD (n=3, 12.5%) group (p= 0.001). There were no perforations or case fatalities in either group. The predictors of stone extraction were analyzed using univariate regression (Table 1), and it is noticeable that the used technique was the independent predictor of success in stone extraction (Odds Ratio: 5.92, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.38 to 25.30, p-value = 0.009).

Conclusion

The current practice guidelines of the ESGE and ASGE suggest that for large CBD stones, an EST followed by a large balloon dilatation is preferable to EST alone because combining dilatation with EST improves duct clearance and reduces the need for lithotripsy without adding risk. Our results among PAD patients seem to echo this: the EPLBD approach in comparison to EST yielded higher stone clearance on first attempt even without using lithotripsy by the study design. Hence, based on the current study these existing recommendations can be extrapolated to the PAD population based on our study which is one of the first randomized trials in the specific PAD subgroup.

References

1. Zippi M, Traversa G, Pica R, De Felici I, Cassieri C, Marzano C, et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed in patients with Periampullary duodenal diverticula (PAD). Clin Ter. 2014;165(4):e291-4.