[Study of the resistome of human microbial communities using a targeted panel of antibiotic resistance genes in COVID-19 patients].

AIM: To study overall drug resistance genes (resistome) in the human gut microbiome and the changes in these genes during COVID-19 in-hospital therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted. Only cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 RNA using polymerase chain reaction in oro-/nasopharyngeal swab samples were subject to analysis. The patients with a documented history of or current comorbidities of the hepatobiliary system, malignant neoplasms of any localization, systemic and autoimmune diseases, as well as pregnant women were excluded. Feces were collected from all study subjects for subsequent metagenomic sequencing. The final cohort was divided into two groups depending on the disease severity: mild (group 1) and severe (group 2). Within group 2, five subgroups were formed, depending on the use of antibacterial drugs (ABD): group 2A (receiving ABD), group 2AC (receiving ABD before hospitalization), group 2AD (receiving ABD during hospitalization), group 2AE (receiving ABD during and before hospitalization), group 2B (not receiving ABD). RESULTS: The median number of antibiotic resistance (ABR) genes (cumulative at all time points) was significantly higher in the group of patients treated with ABD: 81.0 (95% CI 73.8-84.5) vs. 51.0 (95% CI 31.1-68.4). In the group of patients treated with ABD (2A), the average number of multidrug resistance genes (efflux systems) was significantly higher than in controls (group 2B): 47.0 (95% CI 46.0-51.2) vs. 21.5 (95% CI 7.0-43.9). Patients with severe coronavirus infection tended to have a higher median number of ABR genes but without statistical significance. Patients in the severe COVID-19 group who did not receive ABD before and during hospitalization also had more resistance genes than the patients in the comparison group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that fewer ABR genes were identified in the group with a milder disease than in the group with a more severe disease associated with more ABR genes, with the following five being the most common: SULI, MSRC, ACRE, EFMA, SAT.

[Evolution of ideas on microscopic colitis].

The literature review gives the present-day views of the definition, etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of microscopic colitis (MC). In the present view, MC is an inflammatory bowel disease of unknown etiology, which is characterized by chronic watery diarrhea, no macroscopic signs of large bowel involvement in the presence of specific pathomorphological changes. There are two major forms of MC, which are similar in its clinical picture, yet, heterogeneous in histological criteria: collagenous colitis (CC) and lymphocytic colitis (LC). As of now, the prevalence of MC is about 100 cases per 100,000 population, which is similar with that in other inflammatory bowel diseases, such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. MC generally prevails in women aged over 50 years. The etiology and pathogenesis of MC have not fully investigated. Watery diarrhea is as a predominant pathognomonic symptom in all the patients with MC. The major histological criterion for the diagnosis of CC is subepithelial collagen lining thickening (more than 10 pm) and that for LC is higher intraepithelial lymphocyte counts (more than 20 intraepithelial lymphocytes/100 epitheliocytes). The topical glucocorticosteroid budesonide is currently the only agent, the efficacy of which has been proven in both inducing and maintaining remission in patients with MC in many clinical trials.

[Pharmacotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome in the context of evidence-based medicine].

The paper analyzes an evidence base for the pharmacotherapy of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) A large number of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) systematized in a number of meta-analyses suggest that monotherapy regimens with spasmolytics, antidepressants, dietary fibers, polyethylene glycol, rifaximin, probiotics, and mesalamine are effective. Only some RPCTs evaluate the efficiency of combined pharmacotherapy versus placebo for IBS. Since the basis for the pathophysiology of the latter is motility and functional disorders, visceral hypersensitivity, and, probably, impaired microbiota, we anticipate that the need to use combined approaches to treating the majority of patients with IBS, by covering a few components of its pathogenesis, is relevant. Thus, to choose pharmacotherapy for IBS in each specific case is a challenge as this is determined by the form of IBS, the availability of an approved medicine on the domestic market, the indications for use, possible long-term use, high safety, and efficacy evidence drawn from RPCTs.