1.
Multispecies probiotic administration reduces emotional salience and improves mood in subjects with moderate depression: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Baião, R, Capitão, LP, Higgins, C, Browning, M, Harmer, CJ, Burnet, PWJ
Psychological medicine. 2023;53(8):3437-3447
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Gut microbiota may be able to augment an individual’s mood, brain processing and cognition. Supplements containing live bacteria or a diet high in fibre which act as a substrate for beneficial gut bacteria may be of benefit to individuals with depression or mental illness. This 4-week randomised control trial aimed to determine the effect of a probiotic containing several different gut bacteria species on emotional processing and cognition in people with mild to moderate depression. The results showed that compared to placebo, probiotic intake increased empathy with others and improved some but not all aspects of cognition. Probiotic intake did not affect biological measures of stress but did improve feelings of depression. It was concluded that multispecies probiotics may change the emotional processing of people with depression. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that the use of probiotics may be a good option to reduce the risk of people with mild to moderate depression developing a major depressive disorder.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The potential antidepressant properties of probiotics have been suggested, but their influence on the emotional processes that may underlie this effect is unclear. METHODS Depressed volunteers (n = 71) were recruited into a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled study to explore the effects of a daily, 4-week intake of a multispecies probiotic or placebo on emotional processing and cognition. Mood, anxiety, positive and negative affect, sleep, salivary cortisol and serum C-reactive peptide (CRP) were assessed before and after supplementation. RESULTS Compared with placebo, probiotic intake increased accuracy at identifying faces expressing all emotions (+12%, p < 0.05, total n = 51) and vigilance to neutral faces (mean difference between groups = 12.28 ms ± 6.1, p < 0.05, total n = 51). Probiotic supplementation also reduced reward learning (-9%, p < 0.05, total n = 51), and interference word recall on the auditory verbal learning task (-18%, p < 0.05, total n = 50), but did not affect other aspects of cognitive performance. Although actigraphy revealed a significant group × night-time activity interaction, follow up analysis was not significant (p = 0.094). Supplementation did not alter salivary cortisol or circulating CRP concentrations. Probiotic intake significantly reduced (-50% from baseline, p < 0.05, n = 35) depression scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but these did not correlate with the changes in emotional processing. CONCLUSIONS The impartiality to positive and negative emotional stimuli or reward after probiotic supplementation have not been observed with conventional antidepressant therapies. Further studies are required to elucidate the significance of these changes with regard to the mood-improving action of the current probiotic.
2.
Acceptability, Tolerability, and Estimates of Putative Treatment Effects of Probiotics as Adjunctive Treatment in Patients With Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Nikolova, VL, Cleare, AJ, Young, AH, Stone, JM
JAMA psychiatry. 2023;80(8):842-847
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
About 60% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not fully respond to anti-depressant treatments. The microbiota-gut-brain axis is thought to be involved in the development of MDD, making the microbiome a promising target for new treatments. The aim of this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, including 50 adult patients with major depressive disorder, was to evaluate the tolerability, acceptability and efficacy of a multi-strain probiotic supplement for 8 weeks as an adjunctive to antidepressant drugs. There were no serious adverse events; all reported non-serious events were of gastrointestinal nature and more common in the probiotic group (it was not reported whether the difference was statistically significant). A high adherence rate of 97.2% suggests a high level of acceptability. Depressive mood symptoms improved significantly more in the probiotic group. Greater improvements in anxiety in the probiotic were also seen in some, but not all anxiety scales. The authors concluded that a multi-strain probiotic supplement is a promising adjunct to anti-depressant treatment in patients with MDD, with high tolerability and acceptability.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The microbiota-gut-brain axis is a promising target for novel treatments for mood disorders, such as probiotics. However, few clinical trials have been conducted, and further safety and efficacy data are needed to support this treatment approach. OBJECTIVE To provide acceptability and tolerability data and estimates of intervention effect size for probiotics as adjunctive treatment for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot randomized clinical trial, adults aged 18 to 55 years with MDD taking antidepressant medication but having an incomplete response were studied. A random sample was recruited from primary and secondary care services and general advertising in London, United Kingdom. Data were collected between September 2019 and May 2022 and analyzed between July and September 2022. INTERVENTION Multistrain probiotic (8 billion colony-forming units per day) or placebo daily for 8 weeks added to ongoing antidepressant medication. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The pilot outcomes of the trial were retention, acceptability, tolerability, and estimates of putative treatment effect on clinical symptoms (depression: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD-17] and Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology [IDS] scores; anxiety: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAMA] and General Anxiety Disorder [GAD-7] scores) to be used as indicators for a definitive trial. RESULTS Of 50 included participants, 49 received the intervention and were included in intent-to-treat analyses; of these, 39 (80%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 31.7 (9.8) years. A total of 24 were randomized to probiotic and 25 to placebo. Attrition was 8% (1 in the probiotic group and 3 in the placebo group), adherence was 97.2%, and there were no serious adverse reactions. For the probiotic group, mean (SD) HAMD-17 scores at weeks 4 and 8 were 11.00 (5.13) and 8.83 (4.28), respectively; IDS, 30.17 (11.98) and 25.04 (11.68); HAMA, 11.71 (5.86) and 8.17 (4.68); and GAD-7, 7.78 (4.12) and 7.63 (4.77). For the placebo group, mean (SD) HAMD-17 scores at weeks 4 and 8 were 14.04 (3.70) and 11.09 (3.22), respectively; IDS, 33.82 (9.26) and 29.64 (9.31); HAMA, 14.70 (5.47) and 10.95 (4.48); and GAD-7, 10.91 (5.32) and 9.48 (5.18). Standardized effect sizes (SES) from linear mixed models demonstrated that the probiotic group attained greater improvements in depressive symptoms according to HAMD-17 scores (week 4: SES, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.01-0.98) and IDS Self Report scores (week 8: SES, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.03-0.87) as well as greater improvements in anxiety symptoms according to HAMA scores (week 4: SES, 0.67; 95% CI, 0-0.95; week 8: SES, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.06-1.05), but not GAD-7 scores (week 4: SES, 0.57; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.82; week 8: SES, 0.32; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.65), compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The acceptability, tolerability, and estimated effect sizes on key clinical outcomes are promising and encourage further investigation of probiotics as add-on treatment for people with MDD in a definitive efficacy trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03893162.
3.
Regulation of Neurotransmitters by the Gut Microbiota and Effects on Cognition in Neurological Disorders.
Chen, Y, Xu, J, Chen, Y
Nutrients. 2021;13(6)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Imbalances in the gut microbiota occur in various neurological disorders including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), autism spectrum disorder and depression. Imbalances in key neurotransmitters are associated with the same disorders. This review focuses on the regulatory mechanisms of the intestinal microbiome and its metabolites on cognitive functions and the pathogeneses of these neurodegenerative diseases. The gut microbiota produce neurotransmitters such as glutamate, GABA, serotonin and dopamine or their precursors. These neurotransmitters are not able to cross the blood brain barrier but the precursors are, therefore the gut microbiota is indirectly involved in the regulation of the production of these key neurotransmitters and therefore neuronal activity and cognitive functions of the brain. The findings demonstrate an association between a healthy gut microbiome structure and balanced neurotransmitter levels in the host. Microbial therapy holds huge promise for the treatment of brain disorders. The development of drugs for neurological disorders must also consider effects on the physiology of the gut microbiome.
Abstract
Emerging evidence indicates that gut microbiota is important in the regulation of brain activity and cognitive functions. Microbes mediate communication among the metabolic, peripheral immune, and central nervous systems via the microbiota-gut-brain axis. However, it is not well understood how the gut microbiome and neurons in the brain mutually interact or how these interactions affect normal brain functioning and cognition. We summarize the mechanisms whereby the gut microbiota regulate the production, transportation, and functioning of neurotransmitters. We also discuss how microbiome dysbiosis affects cognitive function, especially in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.
4.
The anxiolytic effect of probiotics: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical and preclinical literature.
Reis, DJ, Ilardi, SS, Punt, SEW
PloS one. 2018;13(6):e0199041
-
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The microbiome-gut-brain axis in general and the possibility of altering the microbiome through administration of probiotics to support physical and mental health has received much attention in recent years. Here, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to evaluate the clinical and preclinical evidence for the use of probiotics in anxiety. 22 preclinical (rodent) studies were included in the meta-analysis and showed an overall significant anxiolytic effect of probiotics in diseased, but not healthy, animals. Studies were heterogenous with regards to species and strains of probiotic used. Subgroup analysis showed that only Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced anxiety-like behaviour. 14 human studies were included in the meta-analysis and overall no anxiolytic effect was observed. Only three out of the 14 studies showed a positive effect (vs 12 out of the 22 animal studies), one of which used L. rhamnosus. Due to the small number of trials no subgroup analysis could be performed. Apart from the small number and heterogeneity of human studies, the authors discuss further possible reasons for the discrepancy between animal and human studies: • Dose: Dosages were typically 100 times higher (per kg) in animals than in humans. • Diseased vs healthy subjects: In animal studies, only those which investigated animals displaying anxiety related behaviour improved with probiotic administration. None of the human studies specifically recruited anxious individuals, eight of the studies included healthy subjects, the other six selected participants for other disorders, including four for irritable bowel syndrome. The authors conclude that more research into an anxiolytic effect of probiotics in humans is warranted, especially using L. rhamnosus, studying patients with anxiety, and using higher dosages and longer study duration.
Expert Review
Conflicts of interest:
None
Take Home Message:
- While preclinical animal studies suggest that probiotics may help reduce anxiety, such findings have not yet translated to clinical research in humans.
- Further investigation of probiotic treatment for clinically relevant anxiety is warranted, particularly with respect to the probiotic species L. rhamnosus.
Evidence Category:
-
X
A: Meta-analyses, position-stands, randomized-controlled trials (RCTs)
-
B: Systematic reviews including RCTs of limited number
-
C: Non-randomized trials, observational studies, narrative reviews
-
D: Case-reports, evidence-based clinical findings
-
E: Opinion piece, other
Summary Review:
This review highlights how important it is for future studies to focus on clinically anxious patients and also to consider exploring the effects of differing doses of probiotics in this population.
Clinical practice applications:
Anxiety disorders affect as many as 3 in 10 people at some point during their lifetime. On that basis, it would be great to have a viable non-pharmaceutical option to help with some of the symptoms.
Considerations for future research:
If the results from the pre-clinical studies can be corroborated in human populations, this could have widespread clinical implications.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Probiotics have generated intensive research interest in recent years as a novel mode of treatment for physical and mental illness. Nevertheless, the anxiolytic potential of probiotics remains unclear. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical and preclinical (animal model) evidence regarding the effect of probiotic administration on anxiety. METHODS The PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were reviewed for preclinical and clinical studies that met the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The effects of probiotics on anxiety-like behavior and symptoms of anxiety were analyzed by meta-analyses. Separate subgroup analyses were conducted on diseased versus healthy animals, specific preclinical probiotic species, and clinical versus healthy human samples. RESULTS Data were extracted from 22 preclinical studies (743 animals) and 14 clinical studies (1527 individuals). Overall, probiotics reduced anxiety-like behavior in animals (Hedges' g = -0.47, 95% CI -0.77 --0.16, p = 0.004). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant reduction only among diseased animals. Probiotic species-level analyses identified only Lactobacillus (L.) rhamnosus as an anxiolytic species, but these analyses were broadly under-powered. Probiotics did not significantly reduce symptoms of anxiety in humans (Hedges' g = -0.12, 95% CI -0.29-0.05, p = 0.151), and did not differentially affect clinical and healthy human samples. CONCLUSIONS While preclinical (animal) studies suggest that probiotics may help reduce anxiety, such findings have not yet translated to clinical research in humans, perhaps due to the dearth of extant research with clinically anxious populations. Further investigation of probiotic treatment for clinically relevant anxiety is warranted, particularly with respect to the probiotic species L. rhamnosus.
5.
Therapist-supported Internet cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in adults.
Olthuis, JV, Watt, MC, Bailey, K, Hayden, JA, Stewart, SH
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;3:CD011565
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Previous research has supported the use of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in the treatment of anxiety disorders, which is aimed at changing negative or unhealthy thinking patterns. Many individuals with anxiety find it challenging to get to CBT appointments and so an internet-based programme, with telephone and email support, has been developed. This systematic review of 38 randomised controlled trial studies aimed to assess the effects of internet CBT (ICBT) on anxiety symptoms and severity. The results showed that there was a clinically important improvement in anxiety alongside reductions in symptom severity and an increase in the patient’s quality of life (QoL) when following ICBT compared to no treatment or online support group discussions. When comparing supported ICBT and self-guided CBT there were no differences between anxiety symptom severity and QoL. When comparing ICBT and face to face therapist-supported CBT, no differences were reported in anxiety symptoms and QoL. It was concluded that ICBT is more beneficial than no treatment or online discussion groups and may be just as useful as face-to-face CBT. The number of studies that compared ICBT to self-guided CBT was limited and so specific conclusions were difficult to ascertain. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that people suffering from anxiety may not be receiving the treatment they need for fears of new situations or leaving the house. In this instance ICBT is an alternative treatment that is just as beneficial as face-to-face therapy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders. Many people have difficulty accessing treatment, due to a variety of obstacles. Researchers have therefore explored the possibility of using the Internet to deliver CBT; it is important to ensure the decision to promote such treatment is grounded in high quality evidence. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of therapist-supported Internet CBT (ICBT) on remission of anxiety disorder diagnosis and reduction of anxiety symptoms in adults as compared to waiting list control, unguided CBT, or face-to-face CBT. Effects of treatment on quality of life and patient satisfaction with the intervention were also assessed. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 16 March 2015. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL. We also searched online clinical trial registries and reference lists of included studies. We contacted authors to locate additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Each identified study was independently assessed for inclusion by two authors. To be included, studies had to be randomised controlled trials of therapist-supported ICBT compared to a waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group; unguided CBT (that is, self-help); or face-to-face CBT. We included studies that treated adults with an anxiety disorder (panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and specific phobia) defined according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III, III-R, IV, IV-TR or the International Classification of Disesases 9 or 10. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and judged overall study quality. We used data from intention-to-treat analyses wherever possible. We assessed treatment effect for the dichotomous outcome of clinically important improvement in anxiety using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For disorder-specific and general anxiety symptom measures and quality of life we assessed continuous scores using standardized mean differences (SMD). We examined statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS We screened 1736 citations and selected 38 studies (3214 participants) for inclusion. The studies examined social phobia (11 trials), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (8 trials), generalized anxiety disorder (5 trials), post-traumatic stress disorder (2 trials), obsessive compulsive disorder (2 trials), and specific phobia (2 trials). Eight remaining studies included a range of anxiety disorder diagnoses. Studies were conducted in Sweden (18 trials), Australia (14 trials), Switzerland (3 trials), the Netherlands (2 trials), and the USA (1 trial) and investigated a variety of ICBT protocols. Three primary comparisons were identified, therapist-supported ICBT versus waiting list control, therapist-supported versus unguided ICBT, and therapist-supported ICBT versus face-to-face CBT.Low quality evidence from 11 studies (866 participants) contributed to a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.75 (95% CI 2.51 to 5.60; I(2) = 50%) for clinically important improvement in anxiety at post-treatment, favouring therapist-supported ICBT over a waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group only. The SMD for disorder-specific symptoms at post-treatment (28 studies, 2147 participants; SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.82; I(2) = 83%) and general anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (19 studies, 1496 participants; SMD -0.75, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.52; I(2) = 78%) favoured therapist-supported ICBT; the quality of the evidence for both outcomes was low.One study compared unguided CBT to therapist-supported ICBT for clinically important improvement in anxiety at post-treatment, showing no difference in outcome between treatments (54 participants; very low quality evidence). At post-treatment there were no clear differences between unguided CBT and therapist-supported ICBT for disorder-specific anxiety symptoms (5 studies, 312 participants; SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.13; I(2) = 58%; very low quality evidence) or general anxiety symptoms (2 studies, 138 participants; SMD 0.28, 95% CI -2.21 to 2.78; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence).Compared to face-to-face CBT, therapist-supported ICBT showed no significant differences in clinically important improvement in anxiety at post-treatment (4 studies, 365 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.34; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between face-to-face and therapist supported ICBT for disorder-specific anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (7 studies, 450 participants; SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.37; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence) or general anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (5 studies, 317 participants; SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.69; I(2) = 78%; low quality evidence).Overall, risk of bias in included studies was low or unclear for most domains. However, due to the nature of psychosocial intervention trials, blinding of participants and personnel, and outcome assessment tended to have a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity across a number of the meta-analyses was substantial, some was explained by type of anxiety disorder or may be meta-analytic measurement artefact due to combining many assessment measures. Adverse events were rarely reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Therapist-supported ICBT appears to be an efficacious treatment for anxiety in adults. The evidence comparing therapist-supported ICBT to waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group only control was low to moderate quality, the evidence comparing therapist-supported ICBT to unguided ICBT was very low quality, and comparisons of therapist-supported ICBT to face-to-face CBT were low quality. Further research is needed to better define and measure any potential harms resulting from treatment. These findings suggest that therapist-supported ICBT is more efficacious than a waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group only control, and that there may not be a significant difference in outcome between unguided CBT and therapist-supported ICBT; however, this latter finding must be interpreted with caution due to imprecision. The evidence suggests that therapist-supported ICBT may not be significantly different from face-to-face CBT in reducing anxiety. Future research should explore heterogeneity among studies which is reducing the quality of the evidence body, involve equivalence trials comparing ICBT and face-to-face CBT, examine the importance of the role of the therapist in ICBT, and include effectiveness trials of ICBT in real-world settings. A timely update to this review is needed given the fast pace of this area of research.