Indications of Helicobacter pylori Eradication Treatment and Its Influence on Prescriptions and Effectiveness (Hp-EuReg).

BACKGROUND: The influence of indications for Helicobacter pylori investigation on prescriptions and effectiveness is unknown. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of indications for H. pylori investigation on prescriptions, effectiveness, compliance, and tolerance. METHODS: International, prospective, non-interventional registry of the management of H. pylori infection by European gastroenterologists (Hp-EuReg). Treatment-näive patients registered from 2013 to 2023 at e-CRF AEG-REDCap were analyzed. The effectiveness was assessed by modified intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 53,636 treatment-naïve cases from 34 countries were included. Most frequent indications were: dyspepsia with normal endoscopy (49%), non-investigated dyspepsia (20%), duodenal ulcer (11%), gastric ulcer (7.7%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (2.6%). Therapy effectiveness varied by indication: duodenal ulcer (91%), gastric ulcer (90%), preneoplastic lesions (90%), dyspepsia with normal endoscopy (89%), GERD (88%), and non-investigated dyspepsia (87%). Bismuth-metronidazole-tetracycline and clarithromycin-amoxicillin-bismuth quadruple therapies achieved 90% effectiveness in all indications except GERD. Concomitant clarithromycin-amoxicillin-tinidazole/metronidazole reached 90% cure rates except in patients with non-investigated dyspepsia; whereas sequential clarithromycin-amoxicillin-tinidazole/metronidazole proved optimal (≥90%) in patients with gastric ulcer only. Adverse events were higher in patients treated for dyspepsia with normal endoscopy and duodenal ulcer compared with the remaining indications (23% and 28%, p < 0.001). Therapeutic compliance was higher in patients with duodenal ulcer and preneoplastic lesions (98% and 99%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In Europe, patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers and preneoplastic lesions showed higher H. pylori treatment effectiveness. Bismuth and non-bismuth quadruple therapies achieved optimal results in almost all indications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02328131.

Role of silymarin as antioxidant in clinical management of chronic liver diseases: a narrative review.

Chronic liver disease (CLD), manifested as hepatic injury, is a major cause of global morbidity and mortality. CLD progresses to fibrosis, cirrhosis, and-ultimately-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) if left untreated. The different phenotypes of CLD based on their respective clinical features and causative agents include alcoholic liver disease (ALD), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), and drug-induced liver injury (DILI). The preferred treatment modality for CLD includes lifestyle modification and diet, along with limited pharmacological agents for symptomatic treatment. Moreover, oxidative stress (OS) is an important pathological mechanism underlying all CLD phenotypes; hence, the use of antioxidants to manage the disease is justified. Based on available clinical evidence, silymarin can be utilized as a hepatoprotective agent, given its potent antioxidant, antifibrotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. The role of silymarin in suppressing OS has been well established, and therefore silymarin is recommended for use in ALD and NAFLD in the guidelines approved by the Russian Medical Scientific Society of Therapists and the Gastroenterology Scientific Society of Russia. However, to discuss the positioning of the original silymarin in clinical guidelines and treatment protocols as a hepatoprotective agent for managing CLD concomitantly with other therapies, an expert panel of international and Russian medical professionals was convened on 11 November 2020. The panel reviewed approaches for the prevention and treatment of OS, existing guidelines for patient management for CLD, and available evidence on the effectiveness of silymarin in reducing OS, fibrosis, and hepatic inflammation and presented in the form of a narrative review. Key messagesAn expert panel of international and Russian medical professionals reviewed existing guidelines for ALD, NAFLD, MAFLD, and DILI to establish consensus recommendations that oxidative stress is the common pathophysiological mechanism underlying these conditions.The panel also discussed the positioning of original silymarin in clinical guidelines and treatment protocols as a hepatoprotective agent for managing CLD concomitantly with other therapies.The panel reviewed the effectiveness of 140 mg original silymarin three times a day in reducing oxidative stress in chronic liver diseases such as ALD, NAFLD, MAFLD, and DILI.

Prevalence of Clostridium Difficile-Associated Diarrhoea in Hospitalised Patients (Results of a Russian Prospective Multicentre Study).

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD) among hospitalised patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) in general and by specific types of medical care and hospital units. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional, non-interventional, multicentre study. The main inclusion criteria were: patient age ≥ 18 years, hospital stay of at least 48 h, current antibiotic therapy or antibiotic therapy within the previous 30 days, loose stools (Bristol stool types 5-7 and stool frequency ≥ 3 within ≤ 24 consecutive hours or exceeding normal for the patient) and signed informed consent form. The stool sample was taken to the local (study site) microbiology laboratory for detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxins A/B using enzyme immunoassay (EIA) stool test. RESULTS: From April 2016 to April 2017, a total of 1245 patients from 12 large hospitals were enrolled in the study. Data on 81 patients were excluded from the analysis for different reasons. Data on 1164 patients (45.2% males and 54.8% females) with a mean age of 54.9 years (range 18-95 years) were analysed. Length of hospitalisation was 2-188 days (median, 8 days). The EIA stool test showed CDAD-positive results in 21.7% (253/1164) patients. The patients were from surgery units (546/1164), internal medicine units (510/1164) and intensive care units (108/1164). The prevalence of CDAD among patients from surgery, internal medicine and intensive care units was 26.2, 17.8 and 17.6%, respectively. Oncology, gastroenterology, septic surgery, oncohaematology and general medical hospital units accounted for more than 75% of all patients included; the prevalence of CDAD by those hospital units was 11.3, 15.0, 39.2, 17.6, and 27.2%, respectively. The proportion of GDH-positive and toxin A/B-negative patients by the rapid stool test result was 16.8% (196/1164). The prevalence of CDAD varied widely between the hospitals (from 0 to 44.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CDAD among hospitalised patients with AAD in this study was 21.7% (95% confidence interval: 14.8 and 28.7%). The percentage of CDAD varied widely between hospitals and by specific types of medical care and hospital units.