The intestinal microbiota plays an important role in maintaining human health, and its alteration is now associated with the development of various gastrointestinal (ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, constipation, etc.) and extraintestinal diseases, such as cancer, metabolic syndrome, neuropsychiatric diseases. In this context, it is not surprising that gut microbiota modification methods may constitute a therapy whose potential has not yet been fully investigated. In this regard, the most interesting method is thought to be fecal microbiota transplantation, which consists of the simultaneous replacement of the intestinal microbiota of a sick recipient with fecal material from a healthy donor. This review summarizes the most interesting findings on the application of fecal microbiota transplantation in gastrointestinal and extraintestinal pathologies.

IntroductionGrowing evidence supports the effectiveness of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in treating ulcerative colitis (UC), although its effects seem to depend on the method of introduction, the number of procedures, the donor material, and the severity of UC.AimThis study aimed to assess FMT's clinical and microbiological efficacy, tolerability, and safety in patients with mild-to-moderate UC.Material and methodsPatients with mild-to-moderate UC were randomized into two groups. The first group (standard-care, n = 27) was treated with basic therapy–mesalazine–at a daily dose of 3 g (2 g orally + 1 g rectally). In the second group (FMT group, n = 26), while taking mesalazine at the indicated dose, each patient with UC as add-on therapy underwent a single FMT procedure with fresh material delivered by colonoscopy from a healthy donor. The clinical efficacy of treatment in both groups was evaluated after 4 and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was remission of UC, defined as a partial Mayo score ≤2, and decreased fecal calprotectin. All patients underwent bacteriological examination of feces for quantitative microbiota composition changes.ResultsClinical response in the form of a significant decrease in stool frequency and a tendency to normalize its consistency after 4 weeks was detected in 14 (51.9%) patients of the standard care group and 16 patients (61.5%) of the FMT group (p = 0.583). The Mayo score in the standard care group was 3.59 ± 1.21 and in the FMT group−3.15±1.04 (p=0.166). After 8 weeks, the main primary endpoint was achieved in 70.4% of the standard-care group patients as compared to 84.6% of participants who received FMT as add-on therapy (p = 0.215). A more pronounced decrease in Mayo score was observed in the FMT group compared to the standard-care group (1.34 ± 1.44 vs. 2.14 ± 1.4; p = 0.045). All patients also showed a significant decrease in fecal calprotectin levels, which correlated with clinical data, stool frequency, and clinical remission. An improvement in gut microbiota composition was noted in both groups, albeit it was significantly more pronounced in the FMT group.ConclusionsFTM in patients with mild-to-moderate UC is a well-tolerated, effective, and safe method of treatment in comparison to basic therapy.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05538026?term=kobyliak&draw=2&rank=4, identifier: NCT05538026.

Background: Heartburn occurs predominantly in the upper gastrointestinal tract and is associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and gastritis. Omeprazole is the most prescribed proton pump inhibitor class of medication to treat heartburn related clinical conditions. To compare the efficacy of omeprazole 40 mg (as a total daily dose) and 20 mg using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with heartburn due to various aetiologies like non-erosive reflux disease, GERD, gastritis, dyspepsia, functional heartburn, gastro-duodenal ulcer.Methods: Naïve patients presenting heartburn symptoms were treated with omeprazole. PROMs were assessed based on short-form-leeds dyspepsia questionnaires (SF-LDQ), work productivity activity impairment (WPAI), relief obtained using medication and, treatment satisfactory questionnaires (TSQ).Results: A total of 18,724 patients with heartburn (GERD and gastritis; n=10,509) were treated with omeprazole (Dr. Reddy’s omeprazole [DO]/generic omeprazole [GO]/branded omeprazole [BO]) 40 mg (as a total daily dose) and 20 mg. Statistical comparative analysis showed significant improvement with omeprazole 40 mg (as a total daily dose) compared to omeprazole 20 mg in SF-LDQ, relief obtained using medication among patients with heartburn. DO 20 mg showed a greater improvement under the ‘a lot’ and ‘complete’ relief category.Conclusions: Omeprazole 40 mg (as a total daily dose) presented better efficacy as compared to omeprazole 20 mg in patient reported outcomes. This study highlights omeprazole 40 mg as the preferred intervention for improving PROMs and quality of life in the treatment of heartburn related clinical conditions.

To date, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common cause of chronic diffuse liver disease. Under adverse conditions, its natural course involves progression from simple steatosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) to the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In recent years, there has been much convincing evidence that NAFLD is a multisystem disease that contributes to damage to extrahepatic organs and systems, primarily increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease and other diseases. In particular, numerous studies in recent years indicate that NAFLD increased the risk of diabetes by at least twice. Currently, the complex and bidirectional relationship between NAFLD and type 2 diabetes are well studied. NAFLD, hepatic and systemic insulin resistance, gut dysbiosis and lipotoxicity are the main factors determining the development of diabetes mellitus in predisposed individuals. Once type 2 diabetes manifests clinically, the likelihood of progressive liver damage increases. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which is associated with type 2 diabetes, is thought to be a sign of a severe clinical course with serious clinical consequences in the form of NASH, liver cirrhosis and HCC. This combination requires a more aggressive therapeutic strategy, HCC screening, and long-term follow-up. A vicious circle is formed, which leads to adverse clinical consequences, worsens the prognosis and requires an active diagnostic and treatment strategy.

No abstract