No abstract

No abstract

The safety of probiotics is tied to their intended use, which includes consideration of potential vulnerability of the consumer or patient, dose and duration of consumption, and both the manner and frequency of administration. Unique to probiotics is that they are alive when administered, and unlike other food or drug ingredients, possess the potential for infectivity or in situ toxin production. Since numerous types of microbes are used as probiotics, safety is also intricately tied to the nature of the specific microbe being used. The presence of transferable antibiotic resistance genes, which comprises a theoretical risk of transfer to a less innocuous member of the gut microbial community, must also be considered. Genetic stability of the probiotic over time, deleterious metabolic activities, and the potential for pathogenicity or toxicogenicity must be assessed depending on the characteristics of the genus and species of the microbe being used. Immunological effects must be considered, especially in certain vulnerable populations, including infants with undeveloped immune function. A few reports about negative probiotic effects have surfaced, the significance of which would be better understood with more complete understanding of the mechanisms of probiotic interaction with the host and colonizing microbes. Use of readily available and low cost genomic sequencing technologies to assure the absence of genes of concern is advisable for candidate probiotic strains. The field of probiotic safety is characterized by the scarcity of studies specifically designed to assess safety contrasted with the long history of safe use of many of these microbes in foods.

Gastric emptying of a digestible solid and liquid meal and oesophageal emptying of a solid bolus were measured with scintigraphic techniques in 20 randomly selected Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients receiving oral hypoglycaemic therapy and 20 control subjects. In the diabetic patients, the relationships between oesophageal emptying, gastric emptying, gastrointestinal symptoms, autonomic nerve function and glycaemic control were examined. The percentage of the solid meal remaining in the stomach at 100 min (p less than 0.001), the 50% gastric emptying time for the liquid meal (p less than 0.05) and oesophageal emptying (p less than 0.05) were slower in the diabetic patients compared to the control subjects. Scores for upper gastrointestinal symptoms and autonomic nerve dysfunction did not correlate significantly (p greater than 0.05) with oesophageal, or gastric emptying. The 50% gastric emptying time for the liquid meal was positively related (r = 0.58, p less than 0.01) to the plasma glucose concentration at the time of the performance of the gastric emptying test and the lag period, before any solid food emptied from the stomach, was longer (p less than 0.05) in subjects with plasma glucose concentrations during the gastric emptying measurement greater than the median, compared to those with glucose concentrations below the median. These results indicate that delayed gastric and oesophageal emptying occur frequently in Type 2 diabetes mellitus and that delayed gastric emptying relates, at least in part, to plasma glucose concentrations.

No abstract