SUMMARY BackgroundThe efficacy of probiotics in alleviating the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) appears to be both strain-and dose-related.

Background: The health benefits of increased intakes of omega-3 fatty acids are well established but palatability often presents a problem. The process of emulsification is used in the food industry to provide a wider spectrum of use, often with the result of increased consumption. Moreover, as emulsification is an important step in the digestion and absorption of fats, the pre-emulsification process may enhance digestion and absorption. In this study the levels of plasma fatty acid and triacylglycerol (TAG) following the ingestion of either an oil mixture or an emulsified oil mixture have been compared.

No abstract

Lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria are increasingly being administered to pregnant women and infants with the intention of improving health. Although these organisms have a long record of safe use, it is important to identify any adverse effects in potentially vulnerable populations. In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we evaluated the safety of a bacterial dietary supplement for the prevention of atopy in infants. Two strains of lactobacilli (Lactobacillus salivarius CUL61 and Lactobacillus paracasei CUL08) and bifidobacteria (Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis CUL34 and Bifidobacterium bifidum CUL20) with a total of 1 x 10(10) colony-forming units were administered daily to women during the last month of pregnancy and to infants aged 0-6 mo. Adverse events (AE) were classified according to WHO International Statistical Classification of Diseases criteria. Common symptoms were recorded by regular questionnaires. Baseline characteristics of 220 mother-infant dyads in the treatment and 234 in the placebo group were similar. Compliance with the trial interventions, loss to follow-up, symptoms, drug usage, infant growth, method of feeding, visits to the doctor, and mothers' assessment of infant health were similar in the 2 groups. Fifteen (6.8%) mothers and 73 (33.2%) infants in the treatment group and 21 (9.0%) mothers and 75 (32.1%) infants in the placebo group reported AE (P = 0.49 and P = 0.84, respectively). Severe AE occurred in 18 mothers and 63 infants with a similar frequency in each group. None of the AE were attributed to the intervention. Our findings support the safe use of this consortium of organisms during pregnancy and early infancy.

BackgroundVitamin D deficiency has been associated or implicated with the pathophysiology of the gastrointestinal conditions inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal cancer, as well as with depression. No trials or epidemiology studies to date have investigated a link with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A single case report has suggested a benefit in IBS of vitamin D supplementation. We hypothesised that IBS participants with vitamin D insufficiency would benefit from repletion in terms of their IBS symptoms. We undertook a pilot trial to provide data to support a power calculation and to justify a full trial.MethodsThis was a randomised, double blinded, three-arm parallel design trial of vitamin D, placebo or a combination of vitamin D and probiotics. Participants were further stratified according to whether they were vitamin D replete or insufficient. Vitamin D status was determined by blood test at baseline and exit; IBS symptoms were assessed by validated questionnaire; dietary intakes were assessed by food frequency questionnaire.ResultsA significant proportion of the IBS population were vitamin D deficient, such that the replete stratum could not be adequately recruited. There was a significant association in the baseline data between circulating vitamin D level and quality of life (“How much has IBS affected your life?”). Supplementation significantly improved vitamin D level versus placebo. IBS symptoms were not significantly improved in this pilot, although a power calculation was enabled from the intervention data.ConclusionsThe IBS population exhibits significant levels of vitamin D insufficiency and would benefit from screening and possible supplementation. The impact of IBS on quality of life may be reduced by vitamin D level. Future trials should have a sample size of over 97.Trial registration number:ICTRN 6116003917.

The human gut is a complex ecosystem occupied by a diverse microbial community. Modulation of this microbiota impacts health and disease. The definitive way to investigate the impact of dietary intervention on the gut microbiota is a human trial. However, human trials are expensive and can be difficult to control; thus, initial screening is desirable. Utilization of a range of in vitro and in vivo models means that useful information can be gathered prior to the necessity for human intervention. This review discusses the benefits and limitations of these approaches.

BackgroundThe vulnerability of clinical trials to volunteer bias is under-reported. Volunteer bias is systematic error due to differences between those who choose to participate in studies and those who do not.Methods and ResultsThis paper extends the applications of the concept of volunteer bias by using data from a trial of probiotic supplementation for childhood atopy in healthy dyads to explore 1) differences between a) trial participants and aggregated data from publicly available databases b) participants and non-participants as the trial progressed 2) impact on trial findings of weighting data according to deprivation (Townsend) fifths in the sample and target populations. 1) a) Recruits (n = 454) were less deprived than the target population, matched for area of residence and delivery dates (n = 6,893) (mean [SD] deprivation scores 0.09[4.21] and 0.79[4.08], t = 3.44, df = 511, p<0.001). b) i)As the trial progressed, representation of the most deprived decreased. These participants and smokers were less likely to be retained at 6 months (n = 430[95%]) (OR 0.29,0.13–0.67 and 0.20,0.09–0.46), and 2 years (n = 380[84%]) (aOR 0.68,0.50–0.93 and 0.55,0.28–1.09), and consent to infant blood sample donation (n = 220[48%]) (aOR 0.72,0.57–0.92 and 0.43,0.22–0.83). ii)Mothers interested in probiotics or research or reporting infants’ adverse events or rashes were more likely to attend research clinics and consent to skin-prick testing. Mothers participating to help children were more likely to consent to infant blood sample donation. 2) In one trial outcome, atopic eczema, the intervention had a positive effect only in the over-represented, least deprived group. Here, data weighting attenuated risk reduction from 6.9%(0.9–13.1%) to 4.6%(−1.4–+10.5%), and OR from 0.40(0.18–0.91) to 0.56(0.26–1.21). Other findings were unchanged.ConclusionsPotential for volunteer bias intensified during the trial, due to non-participation of the most deprived and smokers. However, these were not the only predictors of non-participation. Data weighting quantified volunteer bias and modified one important trial outcome.Trial RegistrationThis randomised, double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Register, Number (ISRCTN) 26287422. Registered title: Probiotics in the prevention of atopy in infants and children.

ObjectiveTo evaluate a multistrain, high-dose probiotic in the prevention of eczema.DesignA randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial.SettingsAntenatal clinics, research clinic, children at home.PatientsPregnant women and their infants.InterventionsWomen from 36 weeks gestation and their infants to age 6 months received daily either the probiotic (Lactobacillus salivarius CUL61, Lactobacillus paracasei CUL08, Bifidobacterium animalis subspecies lactis CUL34 and Bifidobacterium bifidum CUL20; total of 1010 organisms/day) or matching placebo.Main outcome measureDiagnosed eczema at age 2 years. Infants were followed up by questionnaire. Clinical examination and skin prick tests to common allergens were done at 6 months and 2 years.ResultsThe cumulative frequency of diagnosed eczema at 2 years was similar in the probiotic (73/214, 34.1%) and placebo arms (72/222, 32.4%; OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.6). Among the secondary outcomes, the cumulative frequency of skin prick sensitivity at 2 years was reduced in the probiotic (18/171; 10.5%) compared with the placebo arm (32/173; 18.5%; OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.98). The statistically significant differences between the arms were mainly in sensitisation to cow's milk and hen's egg proteins at 6 months. Atopic eczema occurred in 9/171 (5.3%) children in the probiotic arm and 21/173 (12.1%) in the placebo arm (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.91).ConclusionsThe study did not provide evidence that the probiotic either prevented eczema during the study or reduced its severity. However, the probiotic seemed to prevent atopic sensitisation to common food allergens and so reduce the incidence of atopic eczema in early childhood.Trial registration NumberISRCTN26287422.