Emerging evidence suggests that both central and peripheral immunological processes play an important role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but regulatory mechanisms remain unknown. The gut microbiota and its key metabolites are known to affect neuroinflammation by modulating the activity of peripheral and brain-resident immune cells, yet an overview on how the gut microbiota contribute to immunological alterations in AD is lacking. In this review, we discuss current literature on microbiota composition in AD patients and relevant animal models. Next, we highlight how microbiota and their metabolites may contribute to peripheral and central immunological changes in AD. Finally, we offer a future perspective on the translation of these findings into clinical practice by targeting gut microbiota to modulate inflammation in AD. Since we find that gut microbiota alterations in AD can induce peripheral and central immunological changes via the release of microbial metabolites, we propose that modulating their composition may alter ongoing inflammation and could therefore be a promising future strategy to fight progression of AD.
This study explored to what degree economic development and improvement of healthcare are associated with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) mortality. A correlation analysis between LRTI mortality and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, and the Health Access and Quality Index (HAQI), respectively was conducted for 15 countries in East and South-East Asia. The results revealed a dramatic decrease in LRTI mortality in total populations for lower-middle income (LMI) countries but at the same time an increase in upper-middle income (UMI) and high-income (HI) countries. A highly significant ( P < .001) growth-dependent relationship between LRTI mortality and economic growth was observed. Improvements in HAQI were significantly associated with a decrease in LRTI mortality in LMI countries, but an increase in UMI and HI countries. The decline of LRTI mortality amongst children in LMI countries is an encouraging trend and efforts against LRTI must be continued, though not at the expense of preparing health systems for the growing burden.
Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) offer a unique opportunity to obtain controlled efficacy and safety data to support clinical decisions. However, most RCT reporting has a stronger focus on efficacy rather than safety. This study aimed to identify the safety profile of both probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In connection to this paper, an accompanying paper was published in which a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of probiotic interventions compared to that of drug interventions in IBS. Together, these two studies provide a first assessment regarding the feasibility to determine a burden to benefit ratio for both probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. RCTs including participants (>18 years old) with IBS and comparing probiotic or drugs interventions with control groups were identified by a systematic search of MEDLINE (January 2015 – Jan 2021). Reported safety profiles in drug studies were completer and more detailed as compared with studies on probiotics. Several inconsistencies in safety reporting were identified between and within drug and probiotic studies, such as: didn’t report on safety; only reported adverse reactions (ARs) or adverse events (AEs) with a certain severity; didn’t report the total number of AEs; didn’t split in the control- or experimental arm; didn’t specify AEs; and used different thresholds for ‘common’ AEs. Hence, it is difficult to compare safety data from drug and probiotic RCTs across and between different studies. On the current approaches to safety reporting, we could not establish an unambiguous safety profile for neither probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. These shortcomings hamper a critical comparison of the burden to benefit ratio for IBS intervention.
Clinical decisions made by health professionals to recommend either drug or probiotic interventions for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) should be supported by proper knowledge of the efficacy rates of both types of interventions. In this article, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of both probiotic- and drug interventions in IBS. Medline was searched between January 2015 – January 2021. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) recruiting participants > 18 years old with IBS and examining the effect of probiotics or drugs were eligible for inclusion. The data of the primary outcome, i.e. the persistence of IBS symptoms (dichotomous symptom data), were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes, abdominal pain- and bloating scores (continuous data), were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. The search identified 269 citations of which 32 RCTs were eligible. Our meta-analysis indicated that both probiotic and drug interventions are able to improve the persistence of IBS symptoms (RR 0.60 [0.51; 0.92] versus 0.87 [0.81; 0.92], respectively) and abdominal pain scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35 [-0.56; -0.14] versus -0.10 [-0.20; 0.00], respectively). However, determining the overall efficacy of both intervention types is inherently complex and such results should be interpreted with care, due to the large diversity of probiotic- and drug types and doses, which is also complicated by variety in IBS subtypes. Hence, as a first step, more large scale randomised double blind placebo-controlled trials focussing on a specific IBS subtype targeted with specific probiotic strains or specific pharmaceutical modalities should be executed, enabling a more proper comparison between trials.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.