Use of probiotics in clinical practice with special reference to diarrheal diseases: A position statement of the Malaysian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Probiotics comprise a large group of microorganisms, which have different properties and thus confer different benefits. The use of probiotics has shown promising results in the management of diarrheal diseases. While the availability of probiotic products has flourished in the marketplace, there is limited guidance on the selection of probiotics for clinical use. This position paper is aimed at informing clinicians about the proper selection criteria of probiotics based on current evidence on strain-specific efficacy and safety for the management of diarrheal diseases. Members of the working group discussed issues on probiotic use in clinical practice, which were then drafted into statements. Literature to support or refute the statements were gathered through a search of medical literature from 2011 to 2020. Recommendations were formulated based on the drafted statements and evidence gathered, revised as necessary, and finalized upon agreement of all members. Twelve statements and recommendations were developed covering the areas of quality control in the manufacturing of probiotics, criteria for selection of probiotics, and established evidence for use of probiotics in diarrheal diseases in adults and children. Recommendations for the use of specific probiotic strains in clinical practice were categorized as proven and probable efficacy based on strength of evidence. Robust evidence is available to support the use of probiotics for diarrheal diseases in clinical practice. Based on the results obtained, we strongly advocate the careful evaluation of products, including manufacturing practices, strain-specific evidence, and contraindications for at-risk populations when choosing probiotics for use in clinical practice.

Optimizing first line 7-day standard triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: Prolonging treatment or adding bismuth: which is better?

OBJECTIVE: The 7-day standard triple therapy (STT) gives unacceptablly low eradication rates of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). We aimed to examine whether extending STT from 7 days to 14 days or adding a bismuth compound to a 7-day STT would result in better eradication rates. METHODS: H. pylori-positive patients were assigned to Group A (7-day STT; rabeprazole 20 mg twice daily, amoxicillin 1 g twice daily, and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily, for 7 days), Group B (7-day STT with bismuth; rabeprazole 20 mg twice daily, amoxicillin 1 g twice daily, clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily and bismuth subcitrate 240 mg twice daily, for 7 days) and Group C (14-day STT; rabeprazole 20 mg twice daily, amoxicillin 1 g twice daily, and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for 14 days). Eradication was tested using 13 C-UBT at least 4 weeks after the completion of therapy. RESULTS: A total of 364 patients were recruited. In the intention-to-treat analysis, eradication rates were 79.3% (96/121; 95% confidence interval [CI] 71.3-85.6%) for 7-day STT, 81.7% (98/120; 95% CI 73.8-87.6%) for 7-day STT with bismuth, and 88.6% (109/123; 95% CI 81.8-93.1%) for 14-day STT, respectively. Statistical significance was achieved between the 7-day and the 14-day STT treatment (P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Adding bismuth to the 7-day STT did not result in an increase in the eradication rate. Extending the STT to 14 days, however, achieved a significantly higher eradication rate. Nevertheless, this did not achieve the targeted 90% eradication rate on intention-to-treat analysis.