Lung disease/pneumonitis in a patient with ulcerative colitis due to mesalazine

Mesalazine is a main medicine for treatment of ulcerative colitis. Most patience of left-sides and total colitis receive oral mesalazine for many years. Currently, there is a little information about the tolerability and safety of long-term use of mesalazine. The eosinophilic pneumonia, organizing pneumonia, and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia are very rare adverse effects of ulcerative colitis treatment with mesalazine. The article presents case of the development interstitial lung disease induced by mesalazine under long-term maintenance treatment for three years in the young patient with ulcerative colitis. It shows the difficulties in diagnosing this disease due to the work-long low-grade fever in manifestation of pneumonitis, the similarity of clinical and radiological manifestations (diffuse bilateral pattern in chest imaging). The article demonstrates the limitations of modern laboratory and instrumental diagnostic methods for the differentiation of disseminated lesions of the lung tissue, and shows the importance of elimination treatment of mesalazine-induced pneumonitis.

Recommendations of the Russian Gastroenterological Association on Clinical Use of High-Resolution Manometry in Diagnosis of Esophageal Disorders

Aim. Current recommendations of the Russian Gastroenterological Association on clinical use of high-resolution manometry in diagnosis of esophageal disorders are intended to assist in clinical decision making, terminology standardisation and interpretation of clinical data.

Key points. In 2018, a joint meeting of the Russian Gastroenterological Association and Russian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Group approved unified terminology and classification of esophageal motor function disorders for high-resolution manometry diagnosis.

Gastrointestinal patient complaints typically concern esophageal disorders such as dysphagia, regurgitation, heart-burn, chest pain or belching. To exclude erosive and ulcerative lesions, eosinophilic esophagitis and organic changes, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and biopsy are recommended in pre-treatment. Upon excluding mucosal lesions and esophageal lumen obstruction as causal for symptoms, use of high-resolution manometry is recommended. This method of esophageal examination has become the “gold standard” in diagnosis of motor disorders.

High-resolution manometry enables detailed investigation of integral quantitative and qualitative characteristics of esophagus motor function and specific related disorders, analysis of esophageal contractile propagation and strictly coordinated synchronous peristalsis of upper esophageal sphincter, esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter, which malfunction may provoke development of achalasia, esophagospasm, hiatal hernia, ineffective eso pha geal motility and other motor disorders.

Conclusion. High-resolution manometry is a relatively new method for study of esophagus motor function gaining increasingly wide application in clinical practice. It enables a medical professional to obtain evidence that may critically affect the choice of optimal patient care strategy and effective treatment. Current recommendations are based on an extensive review of up-to-date information and will be updated with new corpus of clinical data and assessment emerging in evidential medicine to provide gastroenterologists country-wide with latest scientific and practical guidelines.

Russian consensus on exo- and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency after surgical treatment

The Russian consensus on exo- and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency after surgical treatment was prepared on the initiative of the Russian "Pancreatic Club" on the Delphi method. His goal was to clarify and consolidate the opinions of specialists on the most relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment of exo- and endocrine insufficiency after surgical interventions on the pancreas. An interdisciplinary approach is provided by the participation of leading gastroenterologists and surgeons.

Problems of nociception in gastroesophageal reflux disease: diagnostics and treatment of irritated oesophagus

The following factors of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) pathogenesis are addressed in the abstract: activation of nociceptors, hyperexpression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and increase of functional activity of immune competent cells. The current classification of GERD is given which is based on identification of 4 phenotypes of the disease according to diagnostic criteria and prognosis of treatment effectiveness. Importance of pH-impedance monitoring in GERD diagnostics is demonstrated based on its primary significance for identification of reflux nature and determination of relationship between GERD symptoms and reflux. The diagnostics criteria of functional heartburn and hypersensitive; oesophagus according to Rome IV criteria (2016) are presented. The data of the private investigation are demonstrated according to which irritated oesophagus was observed in 26.2% of healthy persons and in 24.2% of GERD patients with endoscopic or pH-metric symptoms of the disease. Implication of oesophagus clearance disorder in GERD pathogenesis has been pointed out. An overview of the current literature data about effectiveness of surgical treatment in patients with different GERD phenotypes and also assessment of clinical effectiveness of long-term treatment with PPI are given. Advantages of anti-secretory drug of the last generation rabeprazole in different patient groups and possibilities of its use in all GERD phenotypes have been discussed.

The Russian consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis: Enzyme replacement therapy

Pancreatology Club Professional Medical Community, 1A.S. Loginov Moscow 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, Ministry of Health of Russia, 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 State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, 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 Russia, 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, Ministry of Health of Russia, 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 National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 26A.M. Nikiforov All-Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, Russian Ministry for Civil Defense, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters, Saint Petersburg; 27Research Institute for Medical Problems of the North, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Krasnoyarsk; 28S.P. Botkin City Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 29Tver State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tver The Russian consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis has been prepared on the initiative of the Russian Pancreatology Club to clarify and consolidate the opinions of Russian specialists (gastroenterologists, surgeons, and pediatricians) on the most significant problems of diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis. This article continues a series of publications explaining the most significant interdisciplinary consensus statements and deals with enzyme replacement therapy.

The Russian consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis

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.

[To the question of indications for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications]

Creating of the universal doctrine of the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease is one of the main problems of theoretical and practical gastroenterology. From the standpoint of modern concepts of the pathogenesis of GERD, the variety of its clinical manifestations detail the pros and cons of its pharmacological influence and antireflux surgery. Reflected tactical approaches to address the combined complications of gastroesophageal reflux. We demonstrated the efficacy of medical and surgical treatments for disease. Based on the literature analysis were performed the indications for surgical correction of individual variants of the disease.

[Clinical and laboratory evaluation of efficiency of Helicobacter pylori eradication]

AIM

To assess the efficiency of eradication therapy in long-term period using the main signs of functional activity of gastric mucosa (gastrin-17, pepsinogen I, pepsinogen II) and serum antibodies to H. pylori.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

113 patients with chronic gastritis were examihed using clinical, endoscopic and laboratory-based methods of investigation, including GastroPanel Biohit, Finland.

RESULTS

It was observed that after 12 month of successful eradication therapy the titer of IgG to H. pylori did not exceed 60 IU/l, with pepsinogen I and pepsinogen II cut-off values set under 150 microg/l and 15 microg/l respectively.

CONCLUSION

The decrease of the titer of IgG to H. pylori and concentrations of pepsinogen I and II can be used as criteria of successful eradication therapy in long-term period.

[Clinical aspects of using pariet in treating chronic pancreatitis]

Three groups of patients were studied with the purpose of assessing the efficiency of the application of Pariet in the complex treatment of chronic pancreatitis. The first group (16 people) underwent conventional treatment (spasmolytics, enzymes, disintoxication therapy). In addition to conventional treatment, the second (22 people) and third (21 people) groups were administered Pariet (rabeprazole), 20 mg per day, or Quamatel (famotidine), 40 mg per day, respectively. The intragastric and intraduodenal pH was higher against the background of the treatment with Pariet than against the background of the application of Quamatel even within the first hours and days of treatment. A faster pain relief was observed in the second group of patients (p 0.05) than in the third one. According to the MRI data, the seven-day Pariet treatment of patients with chronic pancreatitis was accompanied by a reduction of the pancreas size, the diameter of the main pancreatic duct and the pancreatic edema. Thus, the application of Pariet in the complex treatment of chronic pancreatitis promotes a faster and more efficient pain relief and reduction of pancreatic edemas, as compared to the Quamatel therapy.

[Acid-base blood balance in patients with ulcer under treatment by the gastric secretion inhibitors and antacids]

There was an analysis of the results of the study of intragastric acidity and acid-base balance (ABB) of the blood in 25 patients with duodenal ulcer. The patients were examined before and against the background of the 14-day monotherapy with one of the following preparations: Losec, 40 mg (omeprazole), famotidine, 80 mg (Quamatel), Phosphalugel, or placebo.

[Pharmacotherapy of non-associated with Helicobacter pylori ulcer]

Examination and pharmacotherapy were performed in 77 patients with ulcer disease (48 patients with duodenal ulcer, 29 patients had gastric ulcer). The disease was not associated with Helicobacter pylori. Ulcer disease free of Helicobacter pylori was treated with famotidine within 5 days since the recurrence onset (in acute phase of ulcer defect) followed by intake of phosphalugel (in duodenal ulcer) or de-nol (in gastric ulcer). Such treatment appeared more effective than ranitidine therapy as it consolidates stable remission and produced minimal side effects.