| An expert panel was convened in October 2013 by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) to discuss the field of probiotics. It is now 13 years since the definition of probiotics and 12 years after guidelines were published for regulators, scientists and industry by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the WHO (FAO/WHO). The FAO/WHO definition of a probiotic-"live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host"-was reinforced as relevant and sufficiently accommodating for current and anticipated applications. However, inconsistencies between the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation Report and the FAO/WHO Guidelines were clarified to take into account advances in science and applications. A more precise use of the term 'probiotic' will be useful to guide clinicians and consumers in differentiating the diverse products on the market. This document represents the conclusions of the ISAPP consensus meeting on the appropriate use and scope of the term probiotic.

An in vitro methodology which mimics in vivo human upper gastrointestinal transit was developed. The transit tolerance of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species was determined by exposing washed cell suspensions at 37°C to a simulated gastric juice (pH 2·0), containing pepsin (0·3% w/v) and sodium chloride (0·5% w/v), and a simulated small intestinal juice (pH 8·0), containing pancreatin USP (1 g l−1) and sodium chloride (5 g l−1), and monitoring changes in total viable count periodically. The methodology was also employed to determine the effect of adding milk proteins (1 g l−1), hog gastric mucin (1 g l−1) and soyabean trypsin‐chymotrypsin inhibitor [SBTCI] (1 g l−1) on transit tolerance. The majority (14 of 15) of isolates lost >90% viability during simulated gastric transit. Only one isolate, Lactobacillus fermentum KLD, was considered intrinsically resistant. The addition of milk proteins, singly and in combination, generally improved gastric transit tolerance. In this regard, two isolates, Lact. casei 212.3 and Bifidobacterium infantis 25962, exhibited 100% gastric transit tolerance in the presence of milk proteins. In general, the addition of hog gastric mucin did not influence simulated gastric transit tolerance of lactobacilli but tended to increase that of bifidobacteria. However, it increased that of Lact. casei 242 and Lact. salivarius 43338 but diminished that of B. bifidum 2715 and B. animalis Bo. Selected bile salts‐resistant isolates were intrinsically tolerant to simulated small intestinal transit. Only Lact. casei F19 and B. adolescentis 15703T showed significant reduction in viability after 240 min. In general, the addition of milk proteins and SBTCI did not affect simulated small intestinal transit tolerance. However, they significantly improved the intrinsic resistance of Lact. casei F19 but diminished that of B. breve 15700T. It is concluded that, whereas the majority of bile salts‐resistant lactobacilli and bifidobacteria may be intrinsically sensitive to gastric transit, they are intrinsically resistant to small intestinal transit. In addition, it is postulated that milk proteins and mucin may function as both buffering agents and inhibitors of digestive protease activity in vivo, thereby protecting ingested bacterial strains during upper gastrointestinal transit.

No abstract

No abstract

This is the first prospective study performed in pediatric patients showing that the use of GA inhibitors was associated with an increased risk of acute gastroenteritis and community-acquired pneumonia in GERD-affected children. It could be interesting to underline that we observed an increased incidence of intestinal and respiratory infection in otherwise healthy children taking GA inhibitors for GERD treatment. On the contrary, the majority of the previous data showed that the patients most at risk for pneumonia were those with significant comorbid illnesses such as diabetes or immunodeficiency, and this points to the importance of GA suppression as a major risk factor for infections. In addition, this effect seems to be sustained even after the end of therapy. The results of our study are attributable to many factors, including direct inhibitory effect of GA inhibitors on leukocyte functions and qualitative and quantitative gastrointestinal microflora modification. Additional studies are necessary to investigate the mechanisms of the increased risk of infections in children treated with GA inhibitors, and prophylactic measures could be considered in preventing them.