-
Environment International May 2024Potential effect of greenspace exposure on human microbiota have been explored by a number of observational and interventional studies, but the results remained mixed....
BACKGROUND
Potential effect of greenspace exposure on human microbiota have been explored by a number of observational and interventional studies, but the results remained mixed. We comprehensively synthesized these studies by performing a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
METHODS
Comprehensive literature searches in three international databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and three Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and China Biology Medicine disc) were conducted from inception to November 1, 2023. Observational and interventional studies that evaluated associations between greenspace exposure and human microbiota at different anatomical sites were included. Studies were assessed using the National Toxicology Program's office of Health Assessment and Translation risk of bias tool and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, and evidence grading. Study results were synthesized descriptively.
RESULTS
Twenty studies, including 11 observational studies and 9 interventional studies, were finally included into the systematic review. The microbiota of the included studies was from gut (n = 13), skin (n = 10), oral cavity (n = 5), nasal cavity (n = 5) and eyes (n = 1). The majority of studies reported the associations of greenspace exposure with increased diversity (e.g., richness and Shannon index) and/or altered overall composition of human gut (n = 12) and skin microbiota (n = 8), with increases in the relative abundance of probiotics (e.g., Ruminococcaceae) and decreases in the relative abundance of pathogens (e.g., Streptococcus and Escherichia/Shigella). Due to limited number of studies, evidence concerning greenspace and oral, nasal, and ocular microbiota were still inconclusive.
CONCLUSION
The current evidence suggests that greenspace exposure may diversify gut and skin microbiota and alter their composition to healthier profiles. These findings would be helpful in uncovering the potential mechanisms underlying greenspace and human health and in promoting a healthier profile of human microbiota.
Topics: Humans; Microbiota; Environmental Exposure
PubMed: 38653130
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108662 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Jun 2024Probiotic administration is a promising therapy for improving conditions in NAFLD patients. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare and estimate the relative effects... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotic administration is a promising therapy for improving conditions in NAFLD patients. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare and estimate the relative effects of probiotic interventions and identify the optimal probiotic species for the treatment of NAFLD (Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease) patients.
METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to 29 January 2024 to identify RCTs that were published in English. The GRADE framework was used to assess the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate.
RESULTS
A total of 35 RCTs involving 2212 NAFLD patients were included in the analysis. For primary outcomes, Lactobacillus + Bifidobacterium + Streptococcus exhibited the highest probability of being the finest probiotic combination in terms of enhancing acceptability as well as reducing AST (SMD: -1.95 95% CI: -2.90, -0.99), ALT (SMD = -1.67, 95% CI: -2.48, -0.85), and GGT levels (SMD = -2.17, 95% CI: -3.27, -1.06). In terms of the secondary outcomes, Lactobacillus + Bifidobacterium + Streptococcus was also the best probiotic combination for reducing BMI (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.86, -0.04), LDL levels (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.87, -0.02), TC levels (SMD = -1.09, 95% CI: -1.89, -0.29), and TNF-α levels (SMD = -1.73, 95% CI: -2.72, -0.74).
CONCLUSION
This network meta-analysis revealed that Lactobacillus + Bifidobacterium + Streptococcus may be the most effective probiotic combination for the treatment of liver enzymes, lipid profiles, and inflammation factors. These findings can be used to guide the development of a probiotics-based treatment guideline for NAFLD since there are few direct comparisons between different therapies.
Topics: Probiotics; Humans; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Network Meta-Analysis; Lactobacillus; Bifidobacterium; Streptococcus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38643738
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2024.04.004 -
Communications Medicine Apr 2024Lifestyle choices, metformin, and dietary supplements may prevent GDM, but the effect of intervention characteristics has not been identified. This review evaluated...
BACKGROUND
Lifestyle choices, metformin, and dietary supplements may prevent GDM, but the effect of intervention characteristics has not been identified. This review evaluated intervention characteristics to inform the implementation of GDM prevention interventions.
METHODS
Ovid, MEDLINE/PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework was used to examine intervention characteristics (who, what, when, where, and how). Subgroup analysis was performed by intervention characteristics.
RESULTS
116 studies involving 40,940 participants are included. Group-based physical activity interventions (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.46, 0.95) reduce the incidence of GDM compared with individual or mixed (individual and group) delivery format (subgroup p-value = 0.04). Physical activity interventions delivered at healthcare facilities reduce the risk of GDM (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.49, 0.72) compared with home-based interventions (subgroup p-value = 0.03). No other intervention characteristics impact the effectiveness of all other interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
Dietary, physical activity, diet plus physical activity, metformin, and myoinositol interventions reduce the incidence of GDM compared with control interventions. Group and healthcare facility-based physical activity interventions show better effectiveness in preventing GDM than individual and community-based interventions. Other intervention characteristics (e.g. utilization of e-health) don't impact the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions, and thus, interventions may require consideration of the local context.
PubMed: 38643248
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-024-00491-1 -
Medicina Clinica Jun 2024Recent clinical studies have yielded controversial results regarding the effect of probiotics on cognitive function in Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recent clinical studies have yielded controversial results regarding the effect of probiotics on cognitive function in Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects. To clarify the efficacy of probiotics on cognition, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Instructions of the PRISMA 2020 statement were followed. Literature from the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched and manually screened for relevant published RCTs. We performed statistical analysis using RevMan, and assessed the risk of bias using the R software.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies comprising 852 patients with MCI or AD were identified. The results of meta-analysis showed that probiotics improved global cognitive function (SMD=0.67; 95% CI, 0.32, 1.02), recall/delayed memory (SMD=0.67; 95% CI: 0.32, 1.02), attention (SMD=0.31; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.58) and visuospatial/constructional (SMD=0.24; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.42) cognitive domain.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis found that probiotic supplementation is associated with an improvement in cognitive performance among patients with AD and MCI. However, current evidence is limited, and more reliable large-scale RCTs with higher methodological quality are needed.
Topics: Humans; Probiotics; Cognitive Dysfunction; Alzheimer Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Cognition; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38641508
DOI: 10.1016/j.medcli.2024.01.013 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Jun 2024Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may benefit from probiotics and prebiotics, but the effects are unclear. To determine whether probiotics... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may benefit from probiotics and prebiotics, but the effects are unclear. To determine whether probiotics and prebiotics affect children with ADHD, a systematic review was conducted.
METHODS
The present systematic review analyzed cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that examined whether prebiotics and probiotics are associated with ADHD. Seven randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies met our inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Research on Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) probiotic supplementation showed that children with ADHD had better emotional, physical, social, and school functioning, and a higher health-related quality of life compared to the placebo group. The studies also showed that Synbiotic 2000 reduces markers of intestinal and vascular inflammation in children with ADHD, in part through increasing SCFA levels.
CONCLUSION
The use of probiotics and prebiotics as adjuvants therapy in patients with ADHD is beneficial. Further studies with longer duration, including more participants and a variety of age groups, and using various evaluation techniques such as in vivo observation are required to examine the effects of prebiotics and probiotics on ADHD.
Topics: Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics; Child; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38623929
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12437 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2024Gut dysbiosis may play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of cirrhosis and the severity of complications. Numerous studies have investigated the probiotics as treatments...
INTRODUCTION
Gut dysbiosis may play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of cirrhosis and the severity of complications. Numerous studies have investigated the probiotics as treatments for cirrhosis. However, there is still a lack of definitive evidence confirming the beneficial effects of probiotics on cirrhosis.
METHODS
Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of probiotic intervention and control treatments, including placebo, no treatment, and active control, on cirrhosis, published from inception to February 2024. Outcomes included hepatic encephalopathy (HE) reversal, safety and tolerability of probiotics, liver function, quality of life, and other cirrhotic-related outcomes. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize evidence.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were included. The quantitative synthesis results showed that compared with the control group, probiotics significantly reverse minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) (risk ratio [RR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 2.32) and improve HE (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.06). Additionally, probiotics demonstrated higher safety and tolerability by causing a lower incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.87). Probiotics could potentially improve liver function by reducing the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.30), and displayed favorable changes in quality of life (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75) and gut flora (SMD 1.67, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.06).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis offers compelling evidence that probiotics are beneficial for cirrhosis by demonstrating reversal of HE, potential for liver function improvements, enhancements in quality of life, and regulation of gut dysbiosis. Furthermore, the apparent safety profile suggests that probiotics are a promising intervention for treating cirrhosis.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42023478380.
PubMed: 38618195
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1379333 -
Preventive Nutrition and Food Science Mar 2024Engineered probiotics (EPs) can be used to treat/manage chronic and congenital diseases. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has evaluated the... (Review)
Review
Engineered probiotics (EPs) can be used to treat/manage chronic and congenital diseases. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has evaluated the effects of EPs on congenital metabolic disorders in murine models and human subjects. Thus, the present study systematically reviewed interventional studies that assessed the effects of EPs on congenital metabolic disorders. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched up to February 2023 to retrieve related publications. Seventy-six articles were obtained in the primary step. After screening the titles/abstracts based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 papers were included. Finally, only seven articles were included after performing full-text evaluation. The included articles evaluated the effects of EPs on managing phenylketonuria (PKU, n=4) and hyperammonemia (n=3). Moreover, these studies examined mice and/or rats (n=6), monkeys (n=1), and humans (n=2). Studies on EPs and hyperammonemia revealed that some wild strains such as have an innate ammonia-hyper-consuming potential; thus, there was no need to manipulate them. However, manipulation is needed to obtain a phenylalanine-metabolizing strain. In conclusion, EPs can be used to manage or treat congenital metabolic diseases including PKU.
PubMed: 38576877
DOI: 10.3746/pnf.2024.29.1.1 -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2024Previous studies have explored the relationship between bipolar disorder and gut microbiota. However, there has been no bibliometric analysis to summarize and analyze...
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have explored the relationship between bipolar disorder and gut microbiota. However, there has been no bibliometric analysis to summarize and analyze these publications. Our objective was to perform a bibliometric analysis to investigate the current status and frontiers of the publications in the field of the association between bipolar disorder and the gut microbiota.
METHODS
We retrieved publications concerning the interplay between the gut microbiota and bipolar disorder from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). The analysis was executed using WoSCC's literature analysis tool and VOSviewer 1.6.16.
RESULTS
In total, we identified 177 publications originating from 362 institutions across 39 countries/regions, and these articles were disseminated in 104 different journals. The most productive institutions, authors, countries/regions, and journals were Zhejiang University contributing 18 publications, Shaohua Hu authoring 12 publications, China with 53 publications, and with 11 publications. The first high-cited document was published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research in 2017, and authored by Evans. In this article, they found gut microbiome composition was associated with BD and its illness severity, and they concluded that targeting the gut microbiota may be helpful to develop the effective treatment for bipolar disorder. The top 5 keywords with the highest frequency except for bipolar disorder and gut microbiota were as follows: depression, inflammation, probiotic, gut-brain axis, and anxiety.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this is the first bibliometric analysis to explore the publications in the field of the association between bipolar disorder and the gut microbiota. The main research hotspots regarding this field were the characteristics, abundance, and diversity of gut microbiome in bipolar disorder, the role of treatment and gut microbiome in bipolar disorder, microbiome-brain connections in bipolar disorder, and interventions for bipolar disorder based on microbiota composition modification. The number of studies about the association between gut microbiota and bipolar disorder is relatively small, and more studies are needed to expand our understanding the association between gut microbiota and bipolar disorder.
PubMed: 38576868
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1290826 -
Nutrition Reviews Mar 2024Context: Research regarding the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with probiotics has not yielded consistent results.
Efficacy of probiotic supplementation and impact on fecal microbiota in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
UNLABELLED
Context: Research regarding the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with probiotics has not yielded consistent results.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics supplementation in patients with IBD.
DATA SOURCES
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of probiotics in patients with IBD were searched in PubMed, the Google Scholar database, Web of Science, and CrossRef for the period July 2003 to June 2023.
DATA EXTRACTION
The RCTs were extracted, independently by 2 authors, according to the PICOS criteria.
DATA ANALYSIS
Seven studies, including a total of 795 patients, met the study criteria. Five end points were selected to evaluate the efficacy. Of these, 3 indicators showed a statistically significant difference in efficacy: C-reactive protein (odds ratio [OR]: -2.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.16, -1.73, P < .01), the number of fecal Bifidobacterium (OR: 3.37, 95% CI: 3.28, 3.47, P < .01), and Lactobacillus(OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.91, 2.09, P < .01). The other 2 indicators (disease activity for Crohn's disease and for ulcerative colitis) showed no statistically significant difference, while the OR reflected a positive correlation.
CONCLUSION
Probiotics supplementation may have a positive effect on IBD by reducing clinical symptoms, reducing the serological inflammatory markers, and increasing favorable gut flora in patients with IBD. Additional RCTs are needed to evaluate the therapeutic effect of probiotics in IBD.
PubMed: 38553410
DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuae022 -
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Jul 2024Many studies have emphasized the possible role of probiotics in psoriasis, probiotic supplementation might be helpful to treat psoriasis. This study systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Many studies have emphasized the possible role of probiotics in psoriasis, probiotic supplementation might be helpful to treat psoriasis. This study systematically evaluated the efficacy of probiotic supplementation for the treatment of psoriasis.
METHODS
We searched some databases with keywords until November 10, 2023, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science. These keywords included probiotics, psoriasis RCT, and so on. After rigorous literature screening by two authors, five studies were identified. Eventually, the required data were independently extracted by another author.
RESULTS
A total of five studies with 286 patients were included. The pooled results showed that the efficacy of probiotic supplementation was superior to placebo in the treatment of psoriasis. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (SMD = -1.40, 95% Cl = -2.63 to -0.17, p < 0.00001) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (SMD = -0.92, 95% Cl = -1.86 to 0.01, p < 0.00001). Score decreased after probiotic supplementation.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis showed that probiotic supplementation could be a new treatment option for psoriasis.
Topics: Psoriasis; Probiotics; Humans; Treatment Outcome; Severity of Illness Index; Dietary Supplements; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38551321
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.16299