Probiotics and autoprobiotics for treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection.

The article discusses various approaches for probiotic treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection: Probiotics as an adjuvant treatment in the standard eradication therapy; probiotic strains as a monotherapy; and autoprobiotics as a monotherapy. Autoprobiotics refer to indigenous bifidobacteria, lactobacilli, or enterococci isolated from a specific individual, intended to restore his/her microbiota and improve his/her health. The potential mechanisms of probiotic action against H. pylori include correction of the gut microbiota, immunological effects (enhancement of humoral and cellular immunity, and reduction of oxidative stress), direct antagonistic effects against H. pylori (such as colonization resistance and bacteriocin synthesis), and stimulation of local immunological protection (strengthening of the mucous protective barrier and reduction of gastric mucosa inflammation). The incorporation of probiotics into comprehensive eradication therapy shows promise in optimizing the treatment of H. pylori infection. Probiotics can enhance the eradication rates of H. pylori, reduce the occurrence and severity of side effects, and improve patient compliance. Probiotic or autoprobiotic monotherapy can be considered as an alternative treatment approach in cases of allergic reactions and insufficient effectiveness of antibiotics. We recommend including probiotics as adjunctive medications in anti-H. pylori regimens. However, further randomized multicenter studies are necessary to investigate the effects of probiotics and autoprobiotics against H. pylori, in order to gain a better understanding of their mechanisms of action.

Novel Budesonide Suppository and Standard Budesonide Rectal Foam Induce High Rates of Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing in Active Ulcerative Proctitis: a Randomised, Controlled, Non-inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Proctitis is the least extensive type of ulcerative colitis, for which rectal therapy is rarely studied and is underused. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient's preference of a novel formulation of budesonide suppository 4 mg, compared with a commercially available budesonide rectal foam 2 mg, for the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative proctitis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either budesonide 4 mg suppository or budesonide 2 mg foam once daily for 8 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline to Week 8 in clinical symptoms, for which clinical remission was defined as having a modified Ulcerative Colitis-Disease Activity Index [UC-DAI] subscore for stool frequency of 0 or 1 and a subscore for rectal bleeding of 0, and mucosal healing, defined as having a modified UC-DAI subscore for mucosal appearance of 0 or 1. Using a more stringent criterion, we additionally analysed deepened mucosal healing, which was defined as a mucosal appearance subscore of 0. Patient's preference, physician's global assessment, and quality of life were also assessed and analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 286 and 291 patients were included in the 4 mg suppository and 2 mg foam groups, respectively. Budesonide 4 mg suppository met the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority to the 2 mg foam in both co-primary endpoints of clinical remission and mucosal healing. Secondary endpoints consistently supported the non-inferiority of the suppository. Trends in favour of the suppository were observed in the subgroup of mesalazine non-responders. More patients reported a preference for the suppository over rectal foam. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ulcerative proctitis, budesonide 4 mg suppository was non-inferior to budesonide 2 mg foam in efficacy, and both were safe and well tolerated.