-
Cells Jan 2023Immune cells and commensal microbes in the human intestine constantly communicate with and react to each other in a stable environment in order to maintain healthy... (Review)
Review
Immune cells and commensal microbes in the human intestine constantly communicate with and react to each other in a stable environment in order to maintain healthy immune activities. Immune system-microbiota cross-talk relies on a complex network of pathways that sustain the balance between immune tolerance and immunogenicity. Probiotic bacteria can interact and stimulate intestinal immune cells and commensal microflora to modulate specific immune functions and immune homeostasis. Growing evidence shows that probiotic bacteria present important health-promoting and immunomodulatory properties. Thus, the use of probiotics might represent a promising approach for improving immune system activities. So far, few studies have been reported on the beneficial immune modulatory effect of probiotics. However, many others, which are mainly focused on their metabolic/nutritional properties, have been published. Therefore, the mechanisms behind the interaction between host immune cells and probiotics have only been partially described. The present review aims to collect and summarize the most recent scientific results and the resulting implications of how probiotic bacteria and immune cells interact to improve immune functions. Hence, a description of the currently known immunomodulatory mechanisms of probiotic bacteria in improving the host immune system is provided.
Topics: Humans; Intestines; Probiotics; Bacteria; Microbiota; Immune Tolerance
PubMed: 36611977
DOI: 10.3390/cells12010184 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... May 2015Probiotics have been used safely for years. Safety outcomes are inconsistently reported in published clinical trials. In 2011, a report released by the Agency for... (Review)
Review
Probiotics have been used safely for years. Safety outcomes are inconsistently reported in published clinical trials. In 2011, a report released by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality concluded that, although the existing probiotic clinical trials reveal no evidence of increased risk, "the current literature is not well equipped to answer questions on the safety of probiotics in intervention studies with confidence." Critics point out that the preponderance of evidence, including the long history of safe probiotic use as well as data from clinical trials, and animal and in vitro studies all support the assumption that probiotics are generally safe for most populations. Theoretical risks have been described in case reports, clinical trial results and experimental models, include systemic infections, deleterious metabolic activities, excessive immune stimulation in susceptible individuals, gene transfer and gastrointestinal side effects. More research is needed to properly describe the incidence and severity of adverse events related to probiotics.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Fungemia; Gastrointestinal Tract; Gene Transfer, Horizontal; Humans; Lactobacillus; Probiotics; Risk; Saccharomyces; Sepsis; United States
PubMed: 25922398
DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ085 -
Nutrients Jul 2023Aging skin, wrinkles, pigmentation, and dryness are problems that plague people, and researchers are working to solve them. Recent studies have shown that intestinal... (Review)
Review
Aging skin, wrinkles, pigmentation, and dryness are problems that plague people, and researchers are working to solve them. Recent studies have shown that intestinal microbiota homeostasis can influence skin health, demonstrating the existence of a gut-skin axis. Recently, improving skin health through probiotic interventions has been proposed, and micro-ecological skin care is becoming a popular concept. By regulating skin health and gut-skin axis interactions, probiotics can be used as potential management tools to suppress and improve skin diseases in multiple ways, including decreasing oxidative stress, suppressing inflammatory responses, and keeping immune effects. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the application and mechanisms of probiotic-mediated gut microbiota homeostasis in skin care and to offer a theoretical basis for the application of probiotics in skin care.
Topics: Humans; Skin; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Skin Diseases; Probiotics; Skin Aging
PubMed: 37513540
DOI: 10.3390/nu15143123 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2021Probiotics, defined as "live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host," are becoming increasingly popular and... (Review)
Review
Probiotics, defined as "live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host," are becoming increasingly popular and marketable. However, too many of the products currently labelled as probiotics fail to comply with the defining characteristics. In recent years, the cosmetic industry has increased the number of products classified as probiotics. While there are several potential applications for probiotics in personal care products, specifically for oral, skin, and intimate care, proper regulation of the labelling and marketing standards is still required to guarantee that consumers are indeed purchasing a probiotic product. This review explores the current market, regulatory aspects, and potential applications of probiotics in the personal care industry.
Topics: Cosmetic Techniques; Cosmetics; Humans; Industry; Probiotics
PubMed: 33652548
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26051249 -
Translational Psychiatry Jun 2022A promising new treatment approach for major depressive disorder (MDD) targets the microbiota-gut-brain (MGB) axis, which is linked to physiological and behavioral... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
A promising new treatment approach for major depressive disorder (MDD) targets the microbiota-gut-brain (MGB) axis, which is linked to physiological and behavioral functions affected in MDD. This is the first randomized controlled trial to determine whether short-term, high-dose probiotic supplementation reduces depressive symptoms along with gut microbial and neural changes in depressed patients. Patients with current depressive episodes took either a multi-strain probiotic supplement or placebo over 31 days additionally to treatment-as-usual. Assessments took place before, immediately after and again four weeks after the intervention. The Hamilton Depression Rating Sale (HAM-D) was assessed as primary outcome. Quantitative microbiome profiling and neuroimaging was used to detect changes along the MGB axis. In the sample that completed the intervention (probiotics N = 21, placebo N = 26), HAM-D scores decreased over time and interactions between time and group indicated a stronger decrease in the probiotics relative to the placebo group. Probiotics maintained microbial diversity and increased the abundance of the genus Lactobacillus, indicating the effectivity of the probiotics to increase specific taxa. The increase of the Lactobacillus was associated with decreased depressive symptoms in the probiotics group. Finally, putamen activation in response to neutral faces was significantly decreased after the probiotic intervention. Our data imply that an add-on probiotic treatment ameliorates depressive symptoms (HAM-D) along with changes in the gut microbiota and brain, which highlights the role of the MGB axis in MDD and emphasizes the potential of microbiota-related treatment approaches as accessible, pragmatic, and non-stigmatizing therapies in MDD. Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov , identifier: NCT02957591.
Topics: Depressive Disorder, Major; Dietary Supplements; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 35654766
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-022-01977-z -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2021In recent years, there has been a growing interest in identifying and applying new, naturally occurring molecules that promote health. Probiotics are defined as "live... (Review)
Review
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in identifying and applying new, naturally occurring molecules that promote health. Probiotics are defined as "live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer health benefits on the host". Quite a few fermented products serve as the source of probiotic strains, with many factors influencing the effectiveness of probiotics, including interactions of probiotic bacteria with the host's microbiome. Prebiotics contain no microorganisms, only substances which stimulate their growth. Prebiotics can be obtained from various sources, including breast milk, soybeans, and raw oats, however, the most popular prebiotics are the oligosaccharides contained in plants. Recent research increasingly claims that probiotics and prebiotics alleviate many disorders related to the immune system, cancer metastasis, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. However, little is known about the role of these supplements as important dietary components in preventing or treating cardiovascular disease. Still, some reports and clinical studies were conducted, offering new ways of treatment. Therefore, the aim of this review is to discuss the roles of gut microbiota, probiotics, and prebiotics interventions in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics
PubMed: 33671813
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26041172 -
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 -
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 -
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