No abstract

Acute liver injury caused by PHMG-hydrochloride or PHMG in combination with either ethanol or diethyl phthalate can be characterized as cholestatic hepatitis with a severe inflammatory component causing high mortality.

The multicenter prospective observational study initiated by the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) is conducted in 27 countries in Europe. The data from the Russian part of the European registry for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection (European Registry on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection, protocol: “Hp-EuReg”) allows us to analyze the real clinical practice of diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori and compare it with international recommendations. Materials and methods. A comparative analysis of the data entered in the register by the Russian research centers “Hp-EuReg”, in the period from 2013 to 2018, was conducted. Results and discussion. Invasive diagnostic methods prevail for the primary diagnosis of H. pylori [histology - 20.3% (in 2013 year) - 43.9% (in 2018 year), rapid urease test - 31.7% and 47.8% respectively]. The most popular mode of eradication therapy is a 10-day triple therapy (62.8-76.2%), the effectiveness of which does not exceed 79% (per protocol). Invasive tests (histology) are the leading method for control the effectiveness of therapy, however, there is a tendency towards a wider use of non-invasive methods (H. pylori stool antigen - from 17% in 2013 to 29.3% in 2018 and urea breath test from 6.9 to 18.3%, respectively). Serological test to control the effectiveness of eradication is still used from 8.2% (2013) to 6.1% (2018). Eradication therapy was not performed in 28% of patients throughout the entire observation period. Conclusion. In Russia, despite approved domestic and international recommendations, deviations in clinical practice persist, both during eradication therapy and in monitoring the effectiveness of eradication therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The safety of Helicobacter pylori eradication treatments and to what extent adverse events (AEs) influence therapeutic compliance in clinical practice are hardly known. Our aim was to assess the frequency, type, intensity, and duration of AEs, and their impact on compliance, for the most frequently used treatments in the “European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management.” METHODS: Systematic prospective noninterventional registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists (27 countries, 300 investigators) on the management of H. pylori infection in routine clinical practice. All prescribed eradication treatments and their corresponding safety profile were recorded. AEs were classified depending on the intensity of symptoms as mild/moderate/severe and as serious AEs. All data were subject to quality control. RESULTS: The different treatments prescribed to 22,492 patients caused at least 1 AE in 23% of the cases; the classic bismuth-based quadruple therapy was the worst tolerated (37% of AEs). Taste disturbance (7%), diarrhea (7%), nausea (6%), and abdominal pain (3%) were the most frequent AEs. The majority of AEs were mild (57%), 6% were severe, and only 0.08% were serious, with an average duration of 7 days. The treatment compliance rate was 97%. Only 1.3% of the patients discontinued treatment due to AEs. Longer treatment durations were significantly associated with a higher incidence of AEs in standard triple, concomitant, bismuth quadruple, and levofloxacin triple or quadruple therapies. DISCUSSION: Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment frequently induces AEs, although they are usually mild and of limited duration. Their appearance does not interfere significantly with treatment compliance.

1Moscow Clinical Research and Practical Center, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 2A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 3Kazan State Medical University, Kazan; 4Kazan (Volga) Federal University, Kazan; 5Far Eastern State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Khabarovsk; 6Morozov City Children’s Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 7I.I. Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 8Siberian State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tomsk; 9M.F. Vladimirsky Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute, Moscow; 10Maimonides State Classical Academy, Moscow; 11V.I. Razumovsky Saratov State Medical University, Saratov; 12I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 13S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; 14Surgut State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Surgut; 15City Clinical Hospital Five, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 16Nizhny Novgorod Medical Academy, Ministry of Health of Russia, Nizhny Novgorod; 17Territorial Clinical Hospital Two, Ministry of Health of the Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar; 18Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 19Rostov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Rostov-on-Don; 20Omsk Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Omsk; 21Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 22Novosibirsk State Medical University, Novosibirsk; 23Stavropol State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Stavropol; 24Kemerovo State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Kemerovo; 25N.I. Pirogov Russian Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 26A.M. Nikiforov All-Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 27Federal Research Center, Krasnoyarsk Research Center, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Research Institute of Medical Problems of the North, Krasnoyarsk; 28S.P. Botkin City Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 29Tver State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tver The Russian consensus (a consensus document) on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis has been prepared on the initiative of the Russian «Pancreatic Club» under the Delphi system. Its aim was to identify and consolidate the opinions of Russian experts on the most topical issues of the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis. The interdisciplinary approach involved the participation of leading gastroenterologists, surgeons, and pediatricians.

.

Aim. To provide practical recommendations on the use of probiotics for the treatment and prevention of gastroenterological diseases in adults.General provisions. Probiotics are living microorganisms that benefit the health of the host when administered in adequate amounts. The main functions of probiotics include the support for colonisation resistance, the metabolism of food substrates and utilisation of end metabolites, the production of substrates necessary for the macro-organism, as well as the regulation of local and adaptive immune responses. Probiotics can be registered in the Russian Federation as biologically active food additives (BAFA) or as pharmaceutical products (drugs) in accordance with the microbiological standards and legislative requirements of the Russian Federation. The probiotics registered in the Russian Federation as BAFA for adults include bacteria of the Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, Pediococcus, Lactococcus, Streptococcus, Bacillus, and Escherichia genera, and fungi of the Saccharomyces genus; probiotics registered as drugs — bacteria of Lactobid, Lactobacid, Escherichia and Enterococcus genera and fungi of the Saccharomyces genus. Some probiotics registered in the Russian Federation include probiotic strains that have proved to be effective for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, the prevention of C. difficile-associated disease, the eradication of H. pylori infection, as well as for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and functional constipation.Conclusions. The clinical efficacy of probiotics depends on the probiotic strains included in their composition and is confirmed by a comparative analysis of the results of appropriate clinical studies. Not all probiotics registered in the Russian Federation as BAFA or drugs contain bacterial or fungal strains; as a result, the expected clinical effect may not be achieved.

The human body, like any other, is an intermediate component of the nitrogen cycle in nature. Consuming nitrogen from the external environment in the form of various compounds, the body processes it into ammonia - one of the final products of exchange of nitrogen-containing substances [1], which is removed from the body in the form of urea. The most active ammonia producers are organs with high exchange of amino acids and biogenic amines - nerve tissue, liver, intestine, and muscles. In a state of nitrogen equilibrium, the adult body consumes and releases about 15 g of nitrogen per day, temporary or permanent disruption of nitrogen balance results in a great number of physiological conditions and diseases, and the need to stabilize it is well known. However, despite a huge number of studies on the role of nitrogen metabolism and its compounds in the clinic, to date we have not been able to find any conciliation document in the world literature on the classification of ammonia-ammonium levels in human blood and approaches to the correction of hyperammonemia, which was the basis for the emergence of this consensus.