
2022 Impact Factor
Several conflicting observational studies have reported associations between
HPE therapy for patients with peptic ulcers is associated with weight gain.12,13 The effects of HPE in non-ulcer patients are less clear. A population-based randomized placebo-controlled study that analyzed the impact of HPE on body weight found that HPE was significantly associated with increased BMI.14 In a study among elderly people, HPE was significantly associated with elevated BMI.15 However, the presence of active ulcers was not controlled in the patients in these studies,14,15 and 1 study did not compare the HPE group with non-HPE controls.15
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of HPE on BMI. The secondary outcome is any change in the lipid profile after HPE. We collected data from 5 university hospitals that are affiliated with the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, and patients were propensity score (PS)-matched to account for measured and unmeasured confounding factors.
Data were retrospectively collected from 5 university hospitals affiliated with the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. The 5 hospitals that participated in this study were Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University International St. Mary’s Hospital, Hallym University Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Ulsan University Gangneung Asan Hospital, and the Catholic University of Korea Eunpyung St. Mary’s Hospital. We analyzed adult patients’ data who participated in the general health screening program. Patients who tested positive on a general health screening for
Height and weight were measured at enrollment and during follow-up at varying intervals. Upper endoscopic findings for active ulcers, ulcer scars, or non-ulcer gastritis at baseline were reviewed by physicians. Laboratory data including hemoglobin, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were collected. The hepatic steatosis index was calculated as follows16:
Hepatic steatosis index = 8 × alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/aspartate aminotransferase (AST) + BMI (if diabetes mellitus is present, +2; if the participant is female, +2)
To identify differences between the 2 PS-matched groups, within-group and between-group comparisons were made. To balance the differences between the HPE and non-HPE groups, PSs were generated using variables including baseline age, sex, the presence of an active peptic ulcer, and BMI. To compare the changes between the HPE and non-HPE groups (between-group comparisons), before-and-after change rates within the HPE and non-HPE groups were calculated and compared using the paired
There were 195 patients in the HPE group and 168 in the non-HPE group before PS matching. The HPE group was older (median [range], 60 [23-87] vs 52 [25-84] years;
Table 1 . Baseline Characteristics Before Propensity Score-matching
Characteristics | HPE (n = 195) | Non-HPE (n = 168) | |
---|---|---|---|
Female | 93 (47.7) | 74 (44.1) | 0.487 |
Age (yr) | 60 (23-87) | 52 (25-84) | < 0.001 |
Interval between measurements (day) | 632 (105-1402) | 596 (150-1648) | 0.234 |
Active ulcera | 28 (14.4) | 13 (7.7) | 0.047 |
Eradication regimen | |||
Triple therapy | 167 (85.6) | ||
Quadruple therapy | 28 (14.4) | ||
< 0.001 | |||
Rapid urease test | 67 (38.9) | 19 (12.9) | |
Warthin-Starry stain | 101 (58.7) | 128 (87.1) | |
Urea-breath test | 4 (2.3) | 0 | |
Site | < 0.001 | ||
Inje University Ilsan Paik | 65 (33.3) | 68 (40.5) | |
International St. Mary | 17 (8.7) | 69 (41.1) | |
Hallym University Chuncheon Sacred Heart | 10 (5.1) | 0 (0.0) | |
Gangneung Asan | 23 (11.8) | 21 (12.5) | |
Eunpyung St. Mary | 80 (41.0) | 10 (6.0) |
aActive or healing ulcer vs ulcer scar or gastritis.
HPE,
Data are presented as n (%) or median (range).
Table 2 . Baseline Characteristics After Propensity Score-matching
Characteristics | HPE (n = 131) | Non-HPE (n = 131) | |
---|---|---|---|
Female | 64 (48.9) | 64 (48.9) | > 0.999 |
Age (yr) | 55 (23-83) | 54 (25-84) | 0.637 |
Interval between measurements (day) | 610 (156-1250) | 606 (154-1648) | 0.572 |
Active ulcera | 12 (9.2) | 12 (9.2) | > 0.999 |
Eradication regimen | |||
Triple therapy | 114 (87.0) | ||
Quadruple therapy | 17 (13.0) | ||
< 0.001 | |||
Rapid urease test | 52 (46.0) | 15 (12.9) | |
Warthin-Starry stain | 59 (52.2) | 101 (87.1) | |
Urea-breath test | 2 (1.8) | 0 (0.0) |
aActive or healing ulcer vs ulcer scar or gastritis.
HPE,
Data are presented as n (%) or median (range).
Table 3 shows within-group and between-group comparisons of variables related to BMI and the lipid profile among HPE and non-HPE patients. The mean BMI increased from 24.49 (SD, 2.79) kg/m2 to 24.66 (SD, 2.93) kg/m2 among HPE patients (
Table 3 . Change of Body Mass Index and Lipid Profile Among Propensity Score-matched
Characteristics | HPE (n = 131) | Within-group | Non-HPE (n = 131) | Within-group | Between-group |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BMI (kg/m2) | |||||
Initial | 24.49 (2.79) | 24.39 (3.32) | 0.174 (T) | ||
Follow-up | 24.66 (2.93) | 24.50 (3.63) | |||
Change | 0.72 (4.27) | 0.022 (S) | 0.42 (5.08) | 0.083 (S) | 0.921 (W) |
Hemoglobin (g/dL), mean | |||||
Initial | 14.37 (4.06) | 14.35 (1.61) | 0.983 (T) | ||
Follow-up | 14.12 (1.50) | 14.27 (1.56) | |||
Change | 0.16 (9.87) | 0.784 (S) | –0.16 (5.98) | 0.695 (S) | 0.599 (W) |
C-reactive protein (mg/dL) | |||||
Initial | 0.32 (0.52) | 0.17 (0.35) | 0.307 (T) | ||
Follow-up | 0.44 (0.92) | 0.27 (0.66) | |||
Change | 2.90 (63.57) | 0.877 (P) | 81.33 (201.78) | 0.418 (P) | 0.439 (T) |
Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | |||||
Initial | 186.68 (37.39) | 193.59 (36.43) | 0.149 (T) | ||
Follow-up | 182.68 (36.60) | 191.20 (40.81) | |||
Change | –1.91 (14.71) | 0.250 (P) | –0.06 (14.58) | 0.866 (S) | 0.710 (W) |
HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | |||||
Initial | 49.63 (21.87) | 42.84 (21.56) | 0.398 (T) | ||
Follow-up | 48.36 (49.34) | 46.46 (49.83) | |||
Change | –38.77 (169.59) | 0.027 (S) | –4.82 (137.88) | 0.475 (S) | 0.438 (W) |
LDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | |||||
Initial | 112.10 (34.53) | 119.55 (32.50) | 0.152 (T) | ||
Follow-up | 110.37 (34.39) | 113.13 (31.26) | |||
Change | 0.75 (28.06) | 0.823 (S) | –1.87 (17.30) | 0.147 (S) | 0.497 (W) |
Triglycerides (mg/dL) | |||||
Initial | 135.47 (78.42) | 128.92 (65.62) | 0.697 (T) | ||
Follow-up | 153.47 (100.16) | 130.13 (64.25) | |||
Change | 20.56 (63.98) | 0.009 (S) | 5.74 (38.00) | 0.456 (S) | 0.053 (W) |
Hepatic steatosis index | |||||
Initial | 33.94 (24.32-45.64) | 32.84 (19.42-52.66) | 0.050 (T) | ||
Follow-up | 34.17 (25.29-49.30) | 32.88 (22.70-46.55) | |||
Change | –0.22 (9.12) | 0.816 (P) | 0.47 (8.25) | 0.579 (P) | 0.585 (T) |
HPE,
Between-group
Data are presented as mean (SD) or median (range).
In the lowest baseline BMI quartile group, the BMI increased after HPE with marginal significance (1.23 [SD, 3.72] kg/m2,
Table 4 . Changes in Body Mass Index Among Propensity Score-matched
Groups | HPE (n = 131) | non-HPE (n = 131) |
---|---|---|
BMI Q1 (kg/m2) | ||
Initial | ||
n | 33 | 39 |
Range | 17.47-22.51 | 15.61-22.51 |
Mean (SD) | 21.09 (1.24) | 20.80 (1.40) |
Between-group | 0.340 (W) | |
Follow-up | ||
n | 33 | 39 |
Range | 18.07-24.24 | 15.01-23.21 |
Mean (SD) | 21.35 (1.44) | 20.75 (1.73) |
Between-group | 0.207 (W) | |
Change | ||
n | 33 | 39 |
Mean (SD) | 1.23 (3.72) | –0.24 (5.25) |
Within-group | 0.066 (P) | 0.937 (S) |
Between-group | 0.214 (W) | |
BMI Q2 (kg/m2) | ||
Initial | ||
n | 33 | 35 |
Range | 22.52-24.35 | 22.64-24.35 |
Mean (SD) | 23.42 (0.58) | 23.57 (0.51) |
Between-group | 0.244 (W) | |
Follow-up | ||
n | 33 | 35 |
Range | 18.99-24.96 | 19.83-26.79 |
Mean (SD) | 23.61 (1.12) | 23.71 (1.27) |
Between-group | 0.980 (W) | |
Change | ||
n | 33 | 35 |
Mean (SD) | 0.83 (4.71) | 0.58 (4.76) |
Within-group | 0.050 (S) | 0.184 (S) |
Between-group | 0.956 (W) | |
BMI Q3 (kg/m2) | ||
Initial | ||
n | 34 | 27 |
Range | 24.46-26.56 | 24.43-26.56 |
Mean (SD) | 25.41 (0.62) | 25.42 (0.62) |
Between-group | 0.967 (T) | |
Follow-up | ||
n | 34 | 27 |
Range | 23.12-29.79 | 22.84-29.26 |
Mean (SD) | 25.55 (1.47) | 25.72 (1.46) |
Between-group | 0.651 (T) | |
Change | ||
n | 34 | 27 |
Mean (SD) | 0.53 (4.85) | 1.21 (5.44) |
Within-group | 0.531 (P) | 0.259 (P) |
Between-group | 0.607 (T) | |
BMI Q4 (kg/m2) | ||
Initial | ||
n | 31 | 30 |
Range | 26.70-31.25 | 26.64-35.01 |
Mean (SD) | 28.25 (1.32) | 29.08 (2.06) |
Between-group | 0.130 (W) | |
Follow-up | ||
n | 31 | 30 |
Range | 25.21-33.68 | 23.05-36.63 |
Mean (SD) | 28.33 (1.75) | 29.20 (2.73) |
Between-group | 0.139 (W) | |
Change | ||
n | 31 | 30 |
Mean (SD) | 0.27 (3.75) | 0.37 (5.01) |
Within-group | 0.691 (P) | 0.228 (S) |
Between-group | 0.579 (W) |
HPE,
Between-group
The BMI change among males (mean 0.50 [SD 4.13] vs 0.89 [4.99],
In this study, we compared the changes in BMI and the lipid profile between HPE and non-HPE groups. BMI and lipid markers increased in both the HPE and non-HPE groups, and the magnitudes of change were not significantly different between the groups. We performed a PS-matched analysis to account for the variables that could potentially bias the results, such as the presence of active ulcer17 and baseline age.18 A stratified analysis by quartiles of baseline BMI was performed to test the difference in BMI change in HPE and non-HPE groups.
To compare the BMI changes in extremes of baseline BMI, we conducted a subgroup analysis by quartiles of baseline BMI. In patients with the lowest baseline BMI, the HPE group showed an increase in BMI, whereas the non-HPE group showed a decrease in BMI (mean [SD] changes, 1.23 [3.72] kg/m2 vs –0.24 [5.25] kg/m2, respectively;
We also performed stratified analyses for baseline age and sex and tested for the interaction effects. In a recent study in Korea, the HDL levels increased, and LDL levels decreased after eradication in females, whereas BMI, but not HDL, increased in male subjects.30 It was suggested that the sex hormones could have caused differences in sex, but the exact mechanisms remained unknown. Our study showed no difference in sex and baseline age between HPE and non-HPE groups, and the interaction effects were also not significant. Perhaps a more detailed prospective analysis on this subject with a larger sample is required.
This study has some limitations. First, the follow-up time was not controlled and was different for every patient. Most of our data came from routine health-screening participants, which is usually carried out at 2-year intervals in Korea; hence the median interval between weight measurements (ie, after HPE in patients who underwent HPE) was 632 days. It is possible that HPE could have had a shorter-term effect on BMI that was not captured in this study. Second, as this was a retrospective study, there is a chance of bias, even after PS matching. There was also a chance of inaccurate measurements of body weight, and the treatment success rate of HPE is unknown. In addition, the baseline prevalence of dyslipidemia or diabetes was not considered into account. Third, the number of participants in our study was relatively small. Despite these limitations, this study combined the treatment results of various centers in Korea on weight change after HPE. In particular, HPE could promote weight gain in the underweight population.
In conclusion, the BMI and lipid profile did not show a significant difference between HPE and non-HPE groups among
None.
None.
Jong Wook Kim designed the study and analyzed the data, drafted the manuscript, tables, and figures, and approved the final version to be published; Myong Ki Baeg analyzed the data, revised the manuscript, and approved the final version; Chang Seok Bang and Jong-Kyu Park analyzed the data and approved the final version; and Jung-Hwan Oh analyzed the data, revised the draft, tables, and figures, and approved the final version.
![]() |
![]() |