1.
Effect of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics on depression: results from a meta-analysis.
Zhang, Q, Chen, B, Zhang, J, Dong, J, Ma, J, Zhang, Y, Jin, K, Lu, J
BMC psychiatry. 2023;23(1):477
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a mood disorder that impairs psychosocial function and quality of life. Recent studies show that prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics reveal a novel way to treat psychiatric disorders such as depression through the microbiota-gut-brain axis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics in alleviating depressive symptoms. This study was a meta-analysis of thirteen studies with a total of 786 participants who were allocated to the intervention group (n=427) and the placebo group (n=359). Results showed that the overall effects of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics on depressive symptoms were significantly superior to those of placebo. Additionally, biological sex was a vital factor that influenced patients’ responses to the treatment. Authors concluded that agents that manipulate gut microbiota might become a novel approach to treat patients with mild-to-moderate depression.
Abstract
Accumulating studies have shown the effects of gut microbiota management tools in improving depression. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on patients with depression. We searched six databases up to July 2022. In total, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 786 participants were included. The overall results demonstrated that patients who received prebiotics, probiotics or synbiotics had significantly improved symptoms of depression compared with those in the placebo group. However, subgroup analysis only confirmed the significant antidepressant effects of agents that contained probiotics. In addition, patients with mild or moderate depression could both benefit from the treatment. Studies with a lower proportion of females reported stronger effects for alleviating depressive symptoms. In conclusion, agents that manipulate gut microbiota might improve mild-to-moderate depression. It is necessary to further investigate the benefits of prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic treatments relative to antidepressants and follow up with individuals over a longer time before these therapies are implemented in clinical practice.
2.
The Role of Genetically Engineered Probiotics for Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review.
Zhang, T, Zhang, J, Duan, L
Nutrients. 2023;15(7)
-
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), largely classified as Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), is a chronic intestinal inflammatory disorder mediated by genetic, immune, microbial, and environmental factors. The aim of this study was to summarise the efficacy of different genetically modified probiotics compared to wild-type probiotics in the treatment of IBD in animal models and patients and to investigate the specific effects and main mechanisms involved. This study was a systematic review of forty-five preclinical studies and one clinical study. Results showed a protective effect of genetically modified organisms (gm) probiotics in colitis. Several protective mechanisms have been identified: reduction of the pro- to anti-inflammatory cytokine ratio in colonic tissue and plasma, modulation of the activity of oxidative stress in the colon, improvement of intestinal barrier integrity, modulation of the diversity and composition of gut microbiota, and production of favourable metabolites, including short-chain fatty acids, by beneficial bacteria. Authors concluded that gm probiotics are more effective and safer than wild-type probiotics, to facilitate clinical translation.
Expert Review
Conflicts of interest:
None
Take Home Message:
Conclusions of this review were largely based on mouse models and although treatment using probiotics is generally considered safe in humans, with only minor side-effects (flatulence), practitioners need to be aware that in an IBD population the use of GM formulations might not be completely without risk.
Evidence Category:
-
A: Meta-analyses, position-stands, randomized-controlled trials (RCTs)
-
X
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:
Introduction
This paper summarises the efficacy of specific genetically modified (GM) probiotic formulations for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) when compared to wild type probiotics. The aim was to ascertain what specific effects and mechanisms such probiotics have on IBD symptomatology.
Methods
- A total of 46 published articles were included; 45 mouse experimental models (induced acute or chronic colitis) (n=15-130) and 1 human IBD population clinical trial (n=10)
- The effect of GM probiotics were compared to placebo and wild-type probiotics in trials including preclinical studies, randomised controlled trials and cohort studies
- Animals received probiotics via gastric gavage (105 - 4 x 1012 CFU) for 3-6 weeks
- The human placebo-uncontrolled trial lasted 7 days and patients received 10 GM capsules of L.lactis (1 x 1010 CFU) twice daily.
Results
- GM probiotics that secrete immunoregulatory cytokines such as IL-10 appear to reduce intestinal damage
- The human trial using GM L.lactis resulted in 5 patients who went into complete clinical remission (CDAI, <150) with 3 patients exhibiting a clinical response (decrease in CDAI, >70). with only minor adverse events (flatulence)
- However, human cytokines that promote intestinal barrier function and epithelial restitution were not enhanced with oral administration of probiotics
- Two studies concluded that GM L.lactis and S.boulardii, that secrete atrial natriuretic peptide, might be the most effective options in supporting colitis
- GM L.casei resulted in faster recovery from weight loss in acute colitis models
- Superoxide dismutase (SOD) producing GM L.fermentum increased SOD activity by almost eightfold compared to the wild type
- GM Lact. fermentum furthermore showed a higher survival rate and lower disease activity index (P <0·05) in colitis models
- GM L.lactis improved gut microbial composition and GM S.cerevisiae improved microbial diversity whilst reducing the Firmicutes to Bacteroides ratio
- GM E.coli significantly reduced weight loss, colon shortening plus lower disease activity and histological changes (P < 0.05).
Conclusion
Despite the heterogeneity of the trials, GM probiotics appear to play a notable part in ameliorating IBD symptomatology and disease severity when compared to wild-type probiotics. Human efficacy and potential adverse effects require more in-depth trials to ascertain safety and optimal dosages.
Clinical practice applications:
- Probiotics species used in the trials included S.thermophilus, E.coli, L.lactis, B.ovatus, S.boulardii, L.fermentum, B.longhum, L.casei, L.plantarum, and S.cerevisiae. Wild-types of some of these are already available to use in clinical practice
- Note that oral administration in the human trial showed no significant health outcome, therefore efficacy and safety need to be ascertained on an individual patient level
- Colonisation of beneficial bacteria in the gut of IBD patients might be difficult and any form of supplementation therefore needs to be closely monitored.
Considerations for future research:
- More evidence is needed to demonstrate that GM probiotic formulations result in significantly improved outcomes when compared to wild-types
- Future randomised placebo-controlled trials need to include larger cohorts to determine supplement efficacy
- Longer periods of intervention are needed to confirm efficacy, safety, and tolerance for both Crohn’s Disease and Colitis
- Optimal GM probiotic formulation, doses, and means of application need to be identified.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many preclinical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of genetically modified probiotics (gm probiotics) in animal models of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). OBJECTIVE This systematic review was performed to investigate the role of gm probiotics in treating IBD and to clarify the involved mechanisms. METHODS PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Medline were searched from their inception to 18 September 2022 to identify preclinical and clinical studies exploring the efficacy of gm probiotics in IBD animal models or IBD patients. Two independent researchers extracted data from the included studies, and the data were pooled by the type of study; that is, preclinical or clinical. RESULTS Forty-five preclinical studies were included. In these studies, sodium dextran sulfate and trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid were used to induce colitis. Eleven probiotic species have been genetically modified to produce therapeutic substances, including IL-10, antimicrobial peptides, antioxidant enzymes, and short-chain fatty acids, with potential therapeutic properties against colitis. The results showed generally positive effects of gm probiotics in reducing disease activity and ameliorating intestinal damage in IBD models; however, the efficacy of gm probiotics compared to that of wild-type probiotics in many studies was unclear. The main mechanisms identified include modulation of the diversity and composition of the gut microbiota, production of regulatory metabolites by beneficial bacteria, reduction of the pro- to anti-inflammatory cytokine ratio in colonic tissue and plasma, modulation of oxidative stress activity in the colon, and improvement of intestinal barrier integrity. Moreover, only one clinical trial with 10 patients with Crohn's disease was included, which showed that L. lactis producing IL-10 was safe, and a decrease in disease activity was observed in these patients. CONCLUSIONS Gm probiotics have a certain efficacy in colitis models through several mechanisms. However, given the scarcity of clinical trials, it is important for researchers to pay more attention to gm probiotics that are more effective and safer than wild-type probiotics to facilitate further clinical translation.
3.
Probiotics for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Huang, R, Ning, H, Shen, M, Li, J, Zhang, J, Chen, X
Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology. 2017;7:392
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
It is estimated that atopic dermatitis (AD) affects around 10-20% of children. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the evidence for using probiotics for the treatment of AD in children. 13 randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included in the review, all but one were of a double-blind design. They included a total of 1070 children, 553 receiving probiotics and 517 controls. Overall, a beneficial effect of probiotics in AD was observed. Subgroup analysis showed a) positive results in children aged 1-18 years, but probiotics being ineffective in infants younger than 1 year; b) probiotics reduced AD in Asian, but not European studies, and c) certain strains proved beneficial (Lactobacillus salivarius, Lactobacillus fermentum and a multi-strain probiotic), whilst Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Lactobacillus plantarum showed no effect. The authors discuss that their meta-analysis is limited by the heterogeneity among the trials and inclusion of studies with small sample sizes. They conclude that probiotics may be of benefit in children with AD but that more adequately powered trials assessing specific probiotics and dosages are needed, to inform the best treatment protocols.
Abstract
Objective: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a prevalent, burdensome, and psychologically important pediatric concern. Probiotics have been suggested as a treatment for AD. Some reports have explored this topic; however, the utility of probiotics for AD remains to be firmly established. Methods: To assess the effects of probiotics on AD in children, the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library Scopus, and OVID databases were searched for reports published in the English language. Results: Thirteen studies were identified. Significantly higher SCORAD values favoring probiotics over controls were observed (mean difference [MD], -3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.12 to -0.03; P < 0.001). The reported efficacy of probiotics in children < 1 year old was -1.03 (95%CI, -7.05 to 4.99) and that in children 1-18 years old was -4.50 (95%CI, -7.45 to -1.54; P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that in Europe, SCORAD revealed no effect of probiotics, whereas significantly lower SCORAD values were reported in Asia (MD, -5.39; 95%CI, -8.91 to -1.87). Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (MD, 3.29; 95%CI, -0.30 to 6.88; P = 0.07) and Lactobacillus plantarum (MD, -0.70; 95%CI, -2.30 to 0.90; P = 0.39) showed no significant effect on SCORAD values in children with AD. However, Lactobacillus fermentum (MD, -11.42; 95%CI, -13.81 to -9.04), Lactobacillus salivarius (MD, -7.21; 95%CI, -9.63 to -4.78), and a mixture of different strains (MD, -3.52; 95%CI, -5.61 to -1.44) showed significant effects on SCORAD values in children with AD. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicated that the research to date has not robustly shown that probiotics are beneficial for children with AD. However, caution is needed when generalizing our results, as the populations evaluated were heterogeneous. Randomized controlled trials with larger samples and greater power are necessary to identify the species, dose, and treatment duration of probiotics that are most efficacious for treating AD in children.