-
The International Journal on Drug Policy Oct 2021We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis addressing community-based assessment and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease, injecting drug... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Community-Based Assessment and Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus-Related Liver Disease, Injecting Drug and Alcohol Use Amongst People Who Are Homeless: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND/AIMS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis addressing community-based assessment and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease, injecting drug use (IDU) and alcohol use amongst people who are homeless (PWAH).
METHODS
Using systematic review methodology, databases were searched (MEDLINE/EMBASE/CINAHL) for studies combining PWAH, HCV-related liver disease and community assessment until December 2019. Studies with a sample size ≥ 30, with PWAH constituting at least 30% of the cohort were included and a quality assessment performed. Pooled estimates of key indicators were analysed using meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We identified 39 studies (n = 13,918), 37 categorised as poor quality (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Prevalence of homelessness ranged between 30%-100% (37 studies). Eight studies provided all of the following: HCV screening, alcohol/substance use/liver fibrosis assessment and HCV treatment. No study provided interventions for alcohol use, with two providing opioid substitution treatment. Alcohol use prevalence (24 studies) was 4%-97%, being 59% (95% CI 20%-92%) in four studies that included only PWAH. Recent IDU prevalence (16 studies) was 7%-73%, being 21% (95% CI 17%-26%) in four studies that included only PWAH. HCV seroprevalence (25 studies) was 2.5% - 58%; in 13 studies that included only PWAH, this was 20% (95% CI 12%-30%). Prevalence of F4 fibrosis (nine studies) was 6%-28%, being 7% and 16% in two studies that included only PWAH. Direct acting antiviral-based intention-to-treat sustained virological response (SVR) rates (five studies) were 82%-92%, being 92% in the one study that included only PWAH. In the only two randomised controlled trials (RCT) identified, community-based interventions (mental health/peer mentor) significantly increased linkage to care (p = 0.04), HCV treatment (p = 0.005) and SVR rates (p = 0.018).
CONCLUSION
The burden from alcohol/IDU and HCV, and consequently liver disease in PWAH needs addressing. RCT trials assessing community-based interventions to improve liver health in PWAH are needed.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Ill-Housed Persons; Humans; Liver; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 34210551
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103342 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2021The unprecedented successes of immunotherapies (IOs) including immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) and adoptive T-cell therapy (ACT) in patients with late-stage cancer...
The unprecedented successes of immunotherapies (IOs) including immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) and adoptive T-cell therapy (ACT) in patients with late-stage cancer provide proof-of-principle evidence that harnessing the immune system, in particular T cells, can be an effective approach to eradicate cancer. This instills strong interests in understanding the immunomodulatory effects of radiotherapy (RT), an area that was actually investigated more than a century ago but had been largely ignored for many decades. With the "newly" discovered immunogenic responses from RT, numerous endeavors have been undertaken to combine RT with IOs, in order to bolster anti-tumor immunity. However, the underlying mechanisms are not well defined, which is a subject of much investigation. We therefore conducted a systematic literature search on the molecular underpinnings of RT-induced immunomodulation and IOs, which identified the IFN-JAK-STAT pathway as a major regulator. Our further analysis of relevant studies revealed that the signaling strength and duration of this pathway in response to RT and IOs may determine eventual immunological outcomes. We propose that strategic targeting of this axis can boost the immunostimulatory effects of RT and radiosensitizing effects of IOs, thereby promoting the efficacy of combination therapy of RT and IOs.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Immunotherapy; Interferons; Janus Kinases; Neoplasms; Radiotherapy; STAT Transcription Factors; Signal Transduction; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 34830176
DOI: 10.3390/ijms222212295 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Coinfection; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35695334
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015209 -
HIV Medicine Jul 2023Prevention of HIV transmission is fundamental to ending the HIV epidemic. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with oral tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) is an established... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Prevention of HIV transmission is fundamental to ending the HIV epidemic. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with oral tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) is an established HIV-prevention method; however, most PrEP services in Europe have been targeted at men who have sex with men (MSM). A survey in 2021 by Women Against Viruses in Europe (WAVE) showed considerable variation in PrEP access and guidance for women throughout Europe. WAVE therefore commissioned this systematic review to provide insight into PrEP provision and barriers to uptake for women in Europe.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched for studies (January 2013-May 2021) that reported on actual (e.g., efficacy and safety) or hypothetical (e.g., awareness, barriers, PrEP impact models) use of oral PrEP involving women (including cis, transgender, pregnant, migrant, and breastfeeding women). Search terms included HIV, pre-exposure prophylaxis (specifically TDF-FTC), and women. Studies performed outside of the World Health Organization European region were excluded.
RESULTS
The search identified 4716 unique citations, and 45 peer-reviewed articles (44 studies) were included. The majority of these studies (34/44 [77%]) included recipients or potential recipients of PrEP, representing 4699 women (243 transgender women). However, few studies were women focused (4/34 [12%]) or took place outside of Western Europe (3/34 [9%]). Across the three clinical studies that reported women-specific outcomes (60 transgender women, 13 pregnant, and 19 cis women), no breakthrough infections were recorded during the use of PrEP. Lack of awareness of PrEP, low self-estimation of HIV acquisition risk, concerns about stigma, lack of protection against other sexually transmitted infections, and PrEP interaction with hormones (for transgender women) were identified as barriers to use. The remaining studies examined healthcare professionals' perceptions of PrEP (9/44 [20%]), asked for public opinion (2/44 [5%]), or modelled the potential of PrEP for HIV prevention (1/44 [2%]).
CONCLUSIONS
This review revealed a notable lack of literature on PrEP for cis and transgender women in Europe. This is synonymous with a lack of PrEP provision for women in this region. Barriers to PrEP uptake are complex and rooted in institutional and societal stigma, which must be addressed at policy level. HIV prevention with PrEP is not 'one size fits all' and requires a nuanced gender-responsive approach. Further research into the use of PrEP in cis, pregnant, breastfeeding, and transgender women is essential if we are to stop HIV transmission by 2030.
Topics: Male; Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Homosexuality, Male; HIV Infections; Anti-HIV Agents; Sexual and Gender Minorities; Tenofovir; Emtricitabine; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis
PubMed: 37088558
DOI: 10.1111/hiv.13458 -
Systematic Reviews May 2022In an unparalleled global response, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 90 countries asked 3.9 billion people to stay home. Yet other countries avoided lockdowns and focused... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In an unparalleled global response, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 90 countries asked 3.9 billion people to stay home. Yet other countries avoided lockdowns and focused on other strategies, like contact tracing. How effective and cost-effective are these strategies? We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on past pandemic controls, with a focus on cost-effectiveness.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE (1946 to April week 2, 2020) and EMBASE (1974 to April 17, 2020) were searched using a range of terms related to pandemic control. Articles reporting on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of at least one intervention were included.
RESULTS
We found 1653 papers; 62 were included. The effectiveness of hand-washing and face masks was supported by randomized trials. These measures were highly cost-effective. For other interventions, only observational and modelling studies were found. They suggested that (1) the most cost-effective interventions are swift contact tracing and case isolation, surveillance networks, protective equipment for healthcare workers, and early vaccination (when available); (2) home quarantines and stockpiling antivirals are less cost-effective; (3) social distancing measures like workplace and school closures are effective but costly, making them the least cost-effective options; (4) combinations are more cost-effective than single interventions; and (5) interventions are more cost-effective when adopted early. For 2009 H1N1 influenza, contact tracing was estimated to be 4363 times more cost-effective than school closure ($2260 vs. $9,860,000 per death prevented).
CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
For COVID-19, a cautious interpretation suggests that (1) workplace and school closures are effective but costly, especially when adopted late, and (2) scaling up as early as possible a combination of interventions that includes hand-washing, face masks, ample protective equipment for healthcare workers, and swift contact tracing and case isolation is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.
Topics: COVID-19; Communicable Disease Control; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35550674
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-01958-9 -
Journal of Viral Hepatitis Jul 2024The impact of concurrent fatty liver (FL) on response to antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients has not been well characterized. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The impact of concurrent fatty liver (FL) on response to antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients has not been well characterized. We aimed to systematically review and analyse antiviral treatment response in CHB patients with and without FL. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to 31 May 2023 for relevant studies. Biochemical response (BR), complete viral suppression (CVS) and hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion in CHB patients with FL (CHB-FL) and without FL (non-FL CHB) were compared. In an initial pool of 2101 citations, a total of 10 studies involving 2108 patients were included. After 12 weeks of treatment, CHB-FL patients as compared with non-FL CHB patients had lower BR rate (48.37% [108/227] vs. 72.98% [126/174], p = .04) but similar trend for CVS (36.86% [80/227] vs. 68.81% [114/174], p = .05) and similar rates of HBeAg seroconversion (6.59% [7/103] vs. 7.40% [7/110], p = .89). However, at week 48, there were no statistically significant differences between CHB-FL and non-FL CHB patients in any of the outcomes, including BR (60.03% [213/471] vs. 69.37% [314/717], p = .67), CVS (65.63% [459/746] vs. 73.81% [743/1132], p = .27) and HBeAg seroconversion (10.01% [30/275] vs. 14.06% [65/453], p = .58) with similar findings for week 96. BR rate was lower in CHB-FL patients after 12 weeks of antiviral treatment. However, after a longer follow-up of either 48 or 96 weeks, no statistically significant differences were observed in BR, CVS or HBeAg seroconversion rates between CHB patients with and without FL.
Topics: Humans; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B e Antigens; Treatment Outcome; Fatty Liver; Seroconversion; Hepatitis B virus; DNA, Viral
PubMed: 38590002
DOI: 10.1111/jvh.13942 -
International Journal of Hematology Sep 2021Interferon therapy has been used in clinical practice for more than three decades to treat polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET). However, there has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Interferon therapy has been used in clinical practice for more than three decades to treat polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET). However, there has been no systematic investigation of its expected outcomes and potential risks. We performed a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcomes (hematological response, molecular response, vascular events, hematological transformation, and adverse events) after interferon therapy for patients with PV and ET. A systematic search identified 37 reports, including data from 1794 patients that were published before March 2021. The pooled overall hematological response (OHR) rate was 86%, with better OHR rates observed in studies using long-acting interferon (p < 0.001) and studies with younger patients (p = 0.038). The pooled overall molecular response rate was 48%, and inter-study heterogeneity was also related to patient age (p = 0.009). The overall incidence was 0.42/100 person-years for thrombosis, 0.01/100 person-years for hemorrhage, 0.21/100 person-years for myelofibrotic transformation, and 0.08/100 person-years for leukemic transformation. Compared with hydroxyurea, interferon produced a non-inferior hematological response and a superior molecular response. In conclusion, interferon therapy provided high rates of hematological and molecular response for patients with PV and ET and was associated with a favorable prognosis.
Topics: Biomarkers; Cell Transformation, Neoplastic; Disease Management; Disease Progression; Hematologic Tests; Humans; Interferons; Polycythemia Vera; Prognosis; Publication Bias; Thrombocythemia, Essential; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34091876
DOI: 10.1007/s12185-021-03171-1 -
The World Allergy Organization Journal Feb 2023Omalizumab which downregulates the immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor site on plasmacytoid dendritic cells and thereby increases interferon-α (INF-α) production, may... (Review)
Review
Omalizumab which downregulates the immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor site on plasmacytoid dendritic cells and thereby increases interferon-α (INF-α) production, may shorten the duration of viral infections by enhancing the antiviral immunity. A systematic review was conducted to investigate whether previous anti-IgE treatment with omalizumab could protect against SARS-CoV-2 disease ("COVID-19") (infection, disease duration, and severity), and whether IFN-α upregulation could be involved. The research included articles published from March 2020 to January 2022. An accurate search was performed on bibliographic biomedical database (MEDLINE - Pubmed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, BIOMED CENTRAL, Google scholar, COCHRANE LIBRARY, ClinicalTrial.gov) including cohorts, case reports and reviews. Different methods were used, based on the study design, to assess the quality of eligible studies. Several authors link omalizumab to a possible protection against viruses, but they often refer to studies carried out before the pandemic and with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) (eg, rhinoviruses -RV). Few cases of COVID-19 patients treated with omalizumab have been recorded, and, in most of them, no increased susceptibility to severe disease was observed. According to these data, the current indication is to continue omalizumab therapy during the pandemic. Moreover, although omalizumab may enhance the antiviral immune response even for SARS-CoV-2, further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis. It would be helpful to establish a registry of omalizumab-treated (or in treatment) patients who have developed COVID-19. Finally, randomized controlled trials could be able to demonstrate the effect of omalizumab in protecting against severe SARS-CoV-2, through IFN-α upregulation or other immunological pathways.
PubMed: 36644451
DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2023.100741 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Jan 2022It has been demonstrated that lactoferrin (LF) plays a role in host defence, but evidence on its potential antiviral property from clinical studies is fragmented. Our... (Review)
Review
It has been demonstrated that lactoferrin (LF) plays a role in host defence, but evidence on its potential antiviral property from clinical studies is fragmented. Our systematic review aimed at identifying the effects of orally administered LF against virus infections. The systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, BioRxiv.org and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to 7th January 2021. Eligible articles investigated any virus family and provided data on the effects of orally administered LF of any origin in the prevention and/or management of confirmed viral infections in people of any age. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk-Of-Bias and ROBINS-1 tools. A total of 27 records were included, nine of which were registered protocols. We found data on Flaviviridae (n = 10), Retroviridae (n = 3), Coronaviridae (n = 2), Reoviridae (n = 2) and Caliciviridae (n = 1). Most published trials were at high risk of bias. The findings were heterogeneous across and within viral families regarding virological, immunological and biological response, with no clear conclusion. Some weak but positive results were reported about decrease of symptom severity and duration, or reduction in viral loads. Despite high tolerability, the effects of LF as oral supplement are still inconsistent, both in preventing and managing viral infections. Small sample sizes, variety in recruitment and treatment protocols, and low study quality may have contributed to such heterogeneity. Better-designed studies are needed to further investigate its potential benefits against viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Lactoferrin; SARS-CoV-2; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 34133812
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2261 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Aug 2022: Probiotic supplementation can prevent and alleviate gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections in healthy individuals. Markers released from the site of... (Review)
Review
: Probiotic supplementation can prevent and alleviate gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections in healthy individuals. Markers released from the site of inflammation are involved in the response to infection or tissue injury. Therefore, we measured the pre-exercise and postexercise levels of inflammation-related markers-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10, interferon (IFN)-γ, salivary immunoglobulin A (IgA), IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, and C-reactive protein (CRP)-in probiotic versus placebo groups to investigate the effects of probiotics on these markers in athletes. Probiotics contained multiple species (e.g., , etc.). : We performed a systematic search for studies published until May 2022 and included nine randomized clinical trials. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Fixed-effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed. Subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of the period of probiotic intervention and timing of postassessment blood sampling. : The levels of IFN-γ and salivary IgA exhibited a significant positive change, whereas those of TNF-α and IL-10 demonstrated a negative change in the probiotic group. The subgroup analysis revealed that the probiotic group exhibited significant negative changes in TNF-α and IL-10 levels in the shorter intervention period. For the subgroup based on the timing of postassessment blood sampling, the subgroup whose blood sample collection was delayed to at least the next day of exercise exhibited significant negative changes in their TNF-α and IL-10 levels. The subgroups whose blood samples were collected immediately after exercise demonstrated negative changes in their TNF-α, IL-8, and IL-10 levels. : Probiotic supplementation resulted in significant positive changes in the IFN-γ and salivary IgA levels and negative changes in the IL-10 and TNF-α levels. No significant changes in the IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, or CRP levels were observed after probiotic use in athletes.
Topics: Athletes; Biomarkers; C-Reactive Protein; Humans; Immunoglobulin A; Inflammation; Interferon-gamma; Interleukin-10; Interleukin-2; Interleukin-4; Interleukin-6; Interleukin-8; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 36143865
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58091188