-
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Sep 2020Cancer is a fatal malignancy with high clinical significance and remains one of the major causes of illness and death. It has no suitable cure existing till now. The... (Review)
Review
Cancer is a fatal malignancy with high clinical significance and remains one of the major causes of illness and death. It has no suitable cure existing till now. The safety and stability of the standard chemotherapeutics drugs and synthetic agents used to manage cancer are doubtful. These agents are affecting the quality of life or contributing for development of drug resistance and are not affordable to the majority of the patients. Therefore, scientists are looking into clinical management of the cancer with high efficiency. This review focuses on the role of probiotics as alternative prevention and treatment of cancer. In this regard, we discuss the alternative cancer biotherapeutic drugs including live or dead probiotics and their metabolites, such as short chain fatty acids, inhibitory compounds of protein, polysaccharide, nucleic acid and ferrichrome in in vitro, in vivo and clinical studies. We also discuss the effectiveness of these biotherapeutics in prevention and treatment of various types of cancer linked with probiotic bacterial or fungal strains, probiotic dose, and time of exposure. More in vivo mainly clinical trials are necessary to further reveal and approve the significant role of live and dead probiotics as well as their metabolic products in cancer prevention and treatment. Finally, the majority of the positive results provided by probiotic treatments are limited to experimental settings. To minimize side effects associated with probiotics, short and long term effect studies in the direction of methodology standardization are required.
Topics: Animals; Bacterial Physiological Phenomena; Fungi; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Humans; Neoplasms; Probiotics; Prognosis
PubMed: 32563987
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110409 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jun 2019Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide; with evidence suggesting that decreased gut barrier function and inflammation are correlated with depressive... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide; with evidence suggesting that decreased gut barrier function and inflammation are correlated with depressive symptoms. We conducted a clinical trial to determine the effect of consumption of probiotic supplements (Winclove's Ecologic® Barrier) on depressive symptoms in a sample of participants with mild to severe depression.
METHOD
71 participants were randomly allocated to either probiotic or placebo, which was, consumed daily over eight weeks. Pre- and post-intervention measures of symptoms and vulnerability markers of depression as well as gut microbiota composition were compared. Clinical trial participants were also compared on psychological variables and gut microbiota composition to a non-depressed group (n = 20).
RESULTS
All clinical trial participants demonstrated improvement in symptoms, suggesting non-specific therapeutic effects associated with weekly monitoring visits. Participants in the probiotic group demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in cognitive reactivity compared with the placebo group, particularly in the mild/moderate subgroup. Probiotics did not significantly alter the microbiota of depressed individuals, however, a significant correlation was found between Ruminococcus gnavus and one depression metric.
LIMITATIONS
There was a high attrition rate, which may be attributed to weekly monitoring visits. Additionally, modulation of the gut microbiota may need more specific testing to distinguish subtle changes.
CONCLUSIONS
While microbiota composition was similar between all groups, probiotics did affect a psychological variable associated with susceptibility to depression. Further research is needed to investigate how probiotics can be utilised to modify mental wellbeing, and whether they can act as an adjunct to existing treatments.
Topics: Adult; Depression; Dietary Supplements; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Male; Placebos; Probiotics; Research Design
PubMed: 31078831
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.097 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 17 December 2019, as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 12, 2019), in the Cochrane Library, and reference lists from studies and reviews. We included additional studies identified during external review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with a placebo or no probiotic in people with acute diarrhoea that is proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were measures of diarrhoea duration (diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours; duration of diarrhoea). Secondary outcomes were number of people hospitalized in community studies, duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies, diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 82 studies with a total of 12,127 participants. These studies included 11,526 children (age < 18 years) and 412 adults (three studies recruited 189 adults and children but did not specify numbers in each age group). No cluster-randomized trials were included. Studies varied in the definitions used for "acute diarrhoea" and "end of the diarrhoeal illness" and in the probiotic(s) tested. A total of 53 trials were undertaken in countries where both child and adult mortality was low or very low, and 26 where either child or adult mortality was high. Risk of bias was high or unclear in many studies, and there was marked statistical heterogeneity when findings for the primary outcomes were pooled in meta-analysis. Effect size was similar in the sensitivity analysis and marked heterogeneity persisted. Publication bias was demonstrated from funnel plots for the main outcomes. In our main analysis of the primary outcomes in studies at low risk for all indices of risk of bias, no difference was detected between probiotic and control groups for the risk of diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 2 trials, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or for duration of diarrhoea (mean difference (MD) 8.64 hours shorter, 95% CI 29.4 hours shorter to 12.1 hours longer; 6 trials, 3058 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Effect size was similar and marked heterogeneity persisted in pre-specified subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes that included all studies. These included analyses limited to the probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii. In six trials (433 participants) of Lactobacillus reuteri, there was consistency amongst findings (I² = 0%), but risk of bias was present in all included studies. Heterogeneity also was not explained by types of participants (age, nutritional/socioeconomic status captured by mortality stratum, region of the world where studies were undertaken), diarrhoea in children caused by rotavirus, exposure to antibiotics, and the few studies of children who were also treated with zinc. In addition, there were no clear differences in effect size for the primary outcomes in post hoc analyses according to decade of publication of studies and whether or not trials had been registered. For other outcomes, the duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies on average was shorter in probiotic groups than in control groups but there was marked heterogeneity between studies (I² = 96%; MD -18.03 hours, 95% CI -27.28 to -8.78, random-effects model: 24 trials, 4056 participants). No differences were detected between probiotic and control groups in the number of people with diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.53; 9 studies, 2928 participants) or in risk of hospitalization in community studies (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.89; 6 studies, 2283 participants). No serious adverse events were attributed to probiotics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Probiotics probably make little or no difference to the number of people who have diarrhoea lasting 48 hours or longer, and we are uncertain whether probiotics reduce the duration of diarrhoea. This analysis is based on large trials with low risk of bias.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Adult; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Humans; Infant; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33295643
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003048.pub4 -
Nutrients Jan 2020Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in...
Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in alleviating the frequency and severity of symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the general adult population. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective studies on GERD, heartburn, regurgitation, and dyspepsia, without any limitation on sample size. The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials. In total, 13 prospective studies that were published in 12 articles were included in the analysis and scored per the Jadad scale as high- (five studies), medium- (two), and low- (six) quality. One article reported on two probiotic groups; thus, 14 comparisons were included in the selected studies, of which 11 (79%) reported positive benefits of probiotics on symptoms of GERD. Five out of 11 positive outcomes (45%) noted benefits on reflux symptoms: three noted reduced regurgitation; improvements in reflux or heartburn were seen in one study; five (45%) saw improvements in dyspepsia symptoms; and nine (81%) saw improvements in other upper gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea (three studies), abdominal pain (five), and gas-related symptoms (four), such as belching, gurgling, and burping. In conclusion, probiotic use can be beneficial for GERD symptoms, such as regurgitation and heartburn. However, proper placebo-controlled, randomized, and double-blinded clinical trials with a sufficient number of participants are warranted to confirm its efficacy in alleviating these symptoms. Further, interventions with longer durations and an intermediate analysis of endpoints should be considered to determine the proper therapeutic window.
Topics: Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 31906573
DOI: 10.3390/nu12010132 -
Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism 2019The gastrointestinal tract is one of the most microbiologically active ecosystems that plays a crucial role in the working of the mucosal immune system (MIS). In this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The gastrointestinal tract is one of the most microbiologically active ecosystems that plays a crucial role in the working of the mucosal immune system (MIS). In this ecosystem, the consumed probiotics stimulate the immune system and induce a network of signals mediated by the whole bacteria or their cell wall structure. This review is aimed at describing the immunological mechanisms of probiotics and their beneficial effects on the host.
SUMMARY
Once administered, oral probiotic bacteria interact with the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs) or immune cells associated with the lamina propria, through Toll-like receptors, and induce the production of different cytokines or chemokines. Macrophage chemoattractant protein 1, produced by the IECs, sends signals to other immune cells leading to the activation of the MIS, characterized by an increase in immunoglobulin A+ cells of the intestine, bronchus and mammary glands, and the activation of T cells. Specifically, probiotics activate regulatory T cells that release IL-10. Interestingly, probiotics reinforce the intestinal barrier by an increase of the mucins, the tight junction proteins and the Goblet and Paneth cells. Another proposed mechanism of probiotics is the modulation of intestinal microbiota by maintaining the balance and suppressing the growth of potential pathogenic bacteria in the gut. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that long-term probiotics consumption does not affect the intestinal homeostasis. The viability of probiotics is crucial in the interaction with IECs and macrophages favoring, mainly, the innate immune response. Macrophages and Dendritic cells (DCs) play an important role in this immune response without inducing an inflammatory pattern, just a slight increase in the cellularity of the lamina propria. Besides, as part of the machinery that probiotics activate to protect against different pathogens, an increase in the microbicidal activity of peritoneal and spleen macrophages has been reported. In malnutrition models, such as undernourishment and obesity, probiotic was able to increase the intestinal and systemic immune response. Furthermore, probiotics contribute to recover the histology of both the intestine and the thymus damaged in these conditions. Probiotic bacteria are emerging as a safe and natural strategy for allergy prevention and treatment. Different mechanisms such as the generation of cytokines from activated pro-T-helper type 1, which favor the production of IgG instead of IgE, have been proposed. Key Messages: Probiotic bacteria, their cell walls or probiotic fermented milk have significant effects on the functionality of the mucosal and systemic immune systems through the activation of multiple immune mechanisms.
Topics: Bacteria; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Immune System; Intestinal Mucosa; Probiotics
PubMed: 30673668
DOI: 10.1159/000496426 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023The gut microbiome has an impact on cancer immune surveillance and immunotherapy, with recent studies showing categorical differences between immunotherapy-sensitive and... (Review)
Review
The gut microbiome has an impact on cancer immune surveillance and immunotherapy, with recent studies showing categorical differences between immunotherapy-sensitive and immunotherapy-resistant cancer patient cohorts. Although probiotics are traditionally being supplemented to promote treatments or sustain therapeutic benefits; the FDA has not approved any for use with immunotherapy. The first step in developing probiotics for immunotherapy is identifying helpful or harmful bacteria down to the strain level. The gut microbiome's heterogeneity before and during treatment is also being investigated to determine microbial strains that are important for immunotherapy. Moreover, Dietary fiber intake, prebiotic supplementation and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) were found to enhance intratumoral CD8+ T cell to T-reg ratio in the clinics. The possibility of probiotic immunotherapy as a "living adjuvant" to CAR treatment and checkpoint blockade resistance is actively being investigated.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Probiotics; Neoplasms; Immunotherapy; Prebiotics
PubMed: 37261348
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1114499 -
Nutrients Jul 2021Probiotic and prebiotic products have shown potential health benefits, including for the prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of adverse effects in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Probiotic and prebiotic products have shown potential health benefits, including for the prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of adverse effects in pregnant people and their infants associated with probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic intake, however, remains unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the evidence on adverse effects of maternal probiotic, prebiotic, and/or synbiotic supplementation during pregnancy and lactation and interpret the findings to help inform clinical decision-making and care of this population. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Scientific databases were searched using pre-determined terms, and risk of bias assessments were conducted to determine study quality. Inclusion criteria were English language studies, human studies, access to full-text, and probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic supplementation to the mother and not the infant. In total, 11/100 eligible studies reported adverse effects and were eligible for inclusion in quantitative analysis, and data were visualised in a GOfER diagram. Probiotic and prebiotic products are safe for use during pregnancy and lactation. One study reported increased risk of vaginal discharge and changes in stool consistency (relative risk [95% CI]: 3.67 [1.04, 13.0]) when administering and Adverse effects associated with probiotic and prebiotic use do not pose any serious health concerns to mother or infant. Our findings and knowledge translation visualisations provide healthcare professionals and consumers with information to make evidence-informed decisions about the use of pre- and probiotics.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lactation; Prebiotics; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Probiotics; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Synbiotics
PubMed: 34371892
DOI: 10.3390/nu13072382 -
PloS One 2018Clinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and...
INTRODUCTION
Clinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and continuously expanding product base, with most available products lacking evidence-based trials that support their use. Even when evidence exists, not all probiotic products are equally effective for all disease prevention or treatment indications. At this point in time, drug regulatory agencies offer limited assistance with regard to guidance and oversight in most countries, including the U.S.
METHODS
We reviewed the current medical literature and sources on the internet to survey the types of available probiotic products and to determine which probiotics had evidence-based efficacy data. Standard medical databases from inception to June 2018 were searched and discussions with experts in the field were conducted. We graded the strength of the evidence for probiotics having multiple, randomized controlled trials and developed a guide for the practical selection of current probiotic products for specific uses.
RESULTS
We found the efficacy of probiotic products is both strain-specific and disease-specific. Important factors involved in choosing the appropriate probiotic include matching the strain(s) with the targeted disease or condition, type of formulation, dose used and the source (manufacturing quality control and shelf-life). While we found many probiotic products lacked confirmatory trials, we found sufficient evidence for 22 different types of probiotics from 249 trials to be included. For example, several types of probiotics had strong evidence for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea [Saccharomyces boulardii I-745, a three-strain mixture (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei Lbc80r, L. rhamnosus CLR2) and L. casei DN114001]. Strong evidence was also found for four types of probiotics for the prevention of a variety of other diseases/conditions (enteral-feed associated diarrhea, travellers' diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolits and side-effects associated with H. pylori treatments. The evidence was most robust for the treatment of pediatric acute diarrhea based on 59 trials (7 types of probiotics have strong efficacy), while an eight-strain multi-strain mixture showed strong efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease and two types of probiotics had strong efficacy for irritable bowel disease. Of the 22 types of probiotics reviewed, 15 (68%) had strong-moderate evidence for efficacy for at least one type of disease.
CONCLUSION
The choice of an appropriate probiotic is multi-factored, based on the mode and type of disease indication and the specific efficacy of probiotic strain(s), as well as product quality and formulation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018103979.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30586435
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209205 -
Nutrients Sep 2019Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a frequent functional gastrointestinal disorder, and alterations in the gut microbiota composition contributes to symptom generation....
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a frequent functional gastrointestinal disorder, and alterations in the gut microbiota composition contributes to symptom generation. The exact mechanisms of probiotics in the human body are not fully understood, but probiotic supplements are thought to improve IBS symptoms through manipulation of the gut microbiota. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the latest randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of probiotic supplementation on symptoms in IBS patients. A literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed) until March 2019. RCTs published within the last five years evaluating effects of probiotic supplements on IBS symptoms were eligible. The search identified in total 35 studies, of which 11 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Seven studies (63.6%) reported that supplementation with probiotics in IBS patients significantly improved symptoms compared to placebo, whereas the remaining four studies (36.4%) did not report any significant improvement in symptoms after probiotic supplementation. Of note, three studies evaluated the effect of a mono-strain supplement, whereas the remaining eight trials used a multi-strain probiotic. Overall, the beneficial effects were more distinct in the trials using multi-strain supplements with an intervention of 8 weeks or more, suggesting that multi-strain probiotics supplemented over a period of time have the potential to improve IBS symptoms.
Topics: Bacteria; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics
PubMed: 31480656
DOI: 10.3390/nu11092048 -
Microbiological Research Jul 2022The gut microbial ecosystem, which is a collection of the host-microbiota interactions and the inter-species interplay among bacteria-dominated microbiota, has become a... (Review)
Review
The gut microbial ecosystem, which is a collection of the host-microbiota interactions and the inter-species interplay among bacteria-dominated microbiota, has become a research hotspot due to its contribution to host health in recent years. Lactobacillus, which has worldwide usage in fermented dairy products, has aroused increasing attention and becomes one of the commonly used probiotics given its promising applications in intestinal health and disease, though it occupies a relatively small proportion of the intestinal microbiota. In the review, we first update the current understanding of determinants of Lactobacillus abundance in the intestinal tract. We then review evidence from animal models to human trials that provided insights into Lactobacillus's applications in common intestinal disorders including the Helicobacter pylori infection, colorectal cancer, diarrhea, inflammatory bowel disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. Mechanisms underlying the probiotic role of Lactobacillus are finally discussed in five aspects: microbial interactions, the improvement of intestinal barrier function, the immunoregulation, the anticancer activity, and the metabolic regulation. This review aims to yield a profound understanding of how Lactobacillus will contribute to disease prevention and individualized therapies in future clinical practice, and to inspire novel microbial strategies utilizing both probiotics and their products in the fields of biology and medicine.
Topics: Animals; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Intestinal Diseases; Lactobacillus; Microbiota; Probiotics
PubMed: 35421680
DOI: 10.1016/j.micres.2022.127019