Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Helicobacter pylori in a Large Multicenter Trial: the MACH 2 Study

Open access
Mégraud, Francis, Lehn, Norbert, Lind, Tore, Bayerdörffer, Ekkehard, O’Morain, Colm, Spiller, Robin, Unge, Peter, van Zanten, Sander Veldhuyzen, Wrangstadh, Michael, Burman, Carl Fredrik·1999·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

Culture and susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori strains was performed in a large multinational, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Culture was carried out on gastric biopsy samples obtained from 516 patients at entry and had a sensitivity of 99% when the [ 13 C]urea breath test was used as a reference. Susceptibility testing was performed for clarithromycin and metronidazole on 485 strains by an agar dilution method and the epsilometer test (Etest) and for amoxicillin by an agar dilution method only. Resistance to clarithromycin (>1 μg/ml) was found in 3% of the H. pylori strains, with a perfect correlation between Etest and agar dilution methods. Resistance to metronidazole (>8 μl/ml) was found in 27% of the strains by agar dilution, but there were important discrepancies between it and the Etest method. No resistance to amoxicillin was found. The logarithms of the MICs of the three antibiotics against susceptible strains had a distribution close to normal. The impact of resistance was tested in the four arms of the trial. There were not enough clarithromycin-resistant strains to evaluate the impact of resistance on the cure rate of clarithromycin-based regimens. For metronidazole-resistant strains, the impact noted in the clarithromycin-metronidazole arm was partially overcome when omeprazole was added (76% eradication for resistant strains versus 95% for susceptible strains). Secondary resistance to clarithromycin occurred in strains from 12 of 105 patients (11.4%) after the failure of a clarithromycin-based regimen to effect eradication. The detection of point mutations in clarithromycin-resistant strains was performed by a combination of PCR and restriction fragment length polymorphism. Mutations (A2142G and 2143G) were found in all strains tested except one. This study stresses the importance of performing susceptibility tests in clinical trials in order to explain the results of different treatments.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aac.43.11.2747

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Mégraud, F., Lehn, N., Lind, T., Bayerdörffer, E., O’Morain, C., Spiller, R., Unge, P., van Zanten, S. V., Wrangstadh, M., & Burman, C. F.
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
1999-11
Volume
43
Issue
11
Pages
2747-2752
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W1889281716
Cited by
265
References
0
FWCI
20.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Helicobacter pylori in a Large Multicenter Trial: the MACH 2 Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.43.11.2747
The paper
Mégraud, F., Lehn, N., Lind, T., Bayerdörffer, E., O’Morain, C., Spiller, R., Unge, P., van Zanten, S. V., Wrangstadh, M., & Burman, C. F. (1999). Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Helicobacter pylori in a Large Multicenter Trial: the MACH 2 Study. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.43.11.2747

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.