ReviewEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2026
Tetracycline for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a narrative review from quadruple to dual therapy.
Review in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis review traces the evolving role of tetracycline in Helicobacter pylori eradication, from an adjunct in bismuth‑based quadruple therapy to a core component of modern vonoprazan‑tetracycline (VT) dual therapy, and identifies key knowledge gaps.
methodsWe conducted a narrative review of tetracycline‑based regimens, focusing on resistance rates, efficacy, safety, and dosing optimisation. Data were extracted from clinical trials, real‑world studies, meta‑analyses, and systematic reviews, especially those comparing VT with bismuth‑based quadruple therapy.
resultsTetracycline maintains extremely low resistance rates (1.2%-3.3% in China, 2.1% globally). As first-line treatment for penicillin-allergic patients, VT dual therapy achieved an eradication rate of 100% (per-protocol: 95.1% in a real-world study), with treatment-emergent adverse events significantly lower than bismuth-based quadruple therapy (14.0% vs. 48.0%). In patients with prior failure of amoxicillin-containing regimens, VT dual therapy achieved an eradication rate of 90.9%. Key unresolved issues include: lack of direct validation of TID tetracycline dosing in the VT dual therapy context (although TID is non-inferior to QID in bismuth-based quadruple therapy); absence of head-to-head comparisons between VT and VA dual therapy; and insufficient evidence for tetracycline use in special populations such as elderly or renally impaired patients.
conclusionCurrent data suggest that, VT dual therapy may represent a safe, simplified, effective option, especially for penicillin‑allergic or treatment‑failure patients. However, optimal tetracycline dosing in VT requires dedicated randomised controlled trials. Future guidelines will need robust evidence from dose‑optimisation studies, comparative trials with VA, and long‑term follow‑up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42377693What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.