Effect of Probiotic Dietary Intervention on Calcium and Haematological Parameters in Geriatrics

Gohel, Manisha Kalpesh; Prajapati, J. B.; Mudgal, Sreeja V; Pandya, Himanshu; Singh, Udaybir; Trivedi, Sunil; Phatak, Ajay; Patel, Rupal

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2016/18877.7627

Cited by 10 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean probiotic administration was 67.01 ± 38.72 days (range = 28–186 days). Probiotic, not synbiotic, interventions were predominantly conducted ( n = 54) [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 89 ]. Probiotic powders were administered in 15 studies [ 31 , 36 , ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The trials were financed by only industry budgets in 20 ( n = 20) [ 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 55 , 64 , 67 , 69 , 75 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 83 , 84 ]. Studies were financed only by academic resources in 10 studies ( n = 10) [ 31 , 32 , 35 , 37 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 52 , 58 , 60 ]. The sponsorships in other studies were partially academic/industrial/government.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Probiotics and Synbiotics on Risk Factors Associated with Cardiometabolic Diseases in Healthy People—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials

Skonieczna-Żydecka

Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka

Kaczmarczyk

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of probiotic/synbiotic formulations to counteract cardiometabolic risk (CMR) in healthy people not receiving adjunctive medication. The systematic search (PubMed/MEDLINE/Embase) until 1 August 2019 was performed for randomized controlled trials in >20 adult patients. Random-effect meta-analysis subgroup and meta-regression analysis of co-primary (haemoglobin A1c (HbA1C), glucose, insulin, body weight, waist circumference (WC), body mass index (BMI), cholesterol, low-density lipoproteins (LDL), high-density lipoproteins (HDL), triglycerides, and blood pressure) and secondary outcomes (uric acid, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1–PAI-1, fibrinogen, and any variable related to inflammation/endothelial dysfunction). We included 61 trials (5422 persons). The mean time of probiotic administration was 67.01 ± 38.72 days. Most of probiotic strains were of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium genera. The other strains were Streptococci, Enterococci, and Pediococci. The daily probiotic dose varied between 106 and 1010 colony-forming units (CFU)/gram. Probiotics/synbiotics counteracted CMR factors (endpoint data on BMI: standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.156, p = 0.006 and difference in means (DM) = −0.45, p = 0.00 and on WC: SMD = −0.147, p = 0.05 and DM = −1.21, p = 0.02; change scores on WC: SMD = −0.166, p = 0.04 and DM = −1.35, p = 0.03) in healthy persons. Overweight/obese healthy people might additionally benefit from reducing total cholesterol concentration (change scores on WC in overweight/obese: SMD: −0.178, p = 0.049). Poor quality of probiotic-related trials make systematic reviews and meta-analyses difficult to conduct and draw definite conclusions. “Gold standard” methodology in probiotic studies awaits further development.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Probiotics and Synbiotics on Risk Factors Associated with Cardiometabolic Diseases in Healthy People—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials

Skonieczna-Żydecka

Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka

Kaczmarczyk

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The numbers of participants were similar and were divided randomly into the intervention group and the control group, among which seven studies were designed as double‐blind trials, and three studies were used cross‐control experiments. The studies met the inclusion were performed in six countries, including America (Holloway et al, ), Japan (Takimoto et al, ), Sweden (Nilsson, Sundh, Backhed, & Lorentzon, ), Taiwan (Tu et al, ), India (Gohel et al, ), and Iran (Asemi et al, ; Farhangi et al, ; Jafarnejad et al, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two of the four studies reported BMD was included owing to T score report, and the other two studies were excluded from meta‐analysis because of the relative alteration of reported BMD between baseline and end point (Nilsson et al, ; Takimoto et al, ). Finally, six studies were preserved for meta‐analysis (Asemi et al, ; Farhangi et al, ; Gohel et al, ; Holloway et al, ; Jafarnejad et al, ; Tu et al, ). Further details about the included studies were shown in Table S2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics on Calcium Homeostasis and Bone Health With Aging: A Systematic Review

Liu

Zhao

Yang

et al. 2019

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Calcium homeostasis and bone health are an increasing concern for middleaged and older adults. Many studies have explored the positive effects of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics on serum calcium and bone mineral density (BMD) or other parameters related to bone health. However, the participants, the species, doses and duration of interventions, outcomes, and measurements varied among these studies.Aims: To systematically evaluate the effect of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics on maintaining calcium homeostasis and improving bone health in middle-aged and older adults. . Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics for middle-aged or older adults were employed for meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.3, and heterogeneity and risk of bias assessment were performed.Results: A total of eight studies, involving 564 participants, were included. Probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics supplementation was able to significantly elevate serum calcium levels (0.52 mg/dl, 95% CI [0.38, 0.66]), heterogeneity: p = .13, I 2 = 44%), while the results of metaanalysis failed to support the effects of this supplementation on the parameters related to bone health in middle-aged and older adults, including BMD, parathyroid hormone, osteocalcin, and alkaline phosphatase.Linking Evidence to Action: Probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics supplementation exerts a facilitating influence on the level of serum calcium, while the present study has not yet supported the beneficial effects of such interventions on bone health. Therefore, further studies with high-quality RCTs are required to determine the effects of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics supplementation on middle-aged and older adults.

show abstract

“…In humans a recent meta-analysis concludes that current evidences suggest a possible use of probiotics as adjuvant therapy in gingivitis and periodontitis [108]. In a geriatric population the administration of Lactobacillus helveticus increases serum calcium [109]; in a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial the administration of Lactobacillus casei Shirota in 417 elderly patients with a distal radius fracture accelerates the healing process [110]. Also in osteopenic women the administration of a multispecies probiotic (6 different species) increases markers of bone formation, decreases TNF alpha level, but has no effect on bone density during a 6 months period [111].…”

Section: Gm Manipulation and Bone Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gut Microbiota, Immune System, and Bone

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gut microbiota (GM) is the whole of commensal, symbiotic, and pathogenic microorganisms living in our intestine. The GM-host interactions contribute to the maturation of the host immune system, modulating its systemic response. It is well documented that GM can interact with non-enteral cells such as immune cells, dendritic cells, and hepatocytes, producing molecules such as short-chain fatty acids, indole derivatives, polyamines, and secondary bile acid. The receptors for some of these molecules are expressed on immune cells, and modulate the differentiation of T effector and regulatory cells: this is the reason why dysbiosis is correlated with several autoimmune, metabolic, and neurodegenerative diseases. Due to the close interplay between immune and bone cells, GM has a central role in maintaining bone health and influences bone turnover and density. GM can improve bone health also increasing calcium absorption and modulating the production of gut serotonin, a molecule that interacts with bone cells and has been suggested to act as a bone mass regulator. Thus, GM manipulation by consumption of antibiotics, changes in dietary habits, and the use of pre- and probiotics may affect bone health. This review summarizes evidences on the influence of GM on immune system and on bone turnover and density and how GM manipulation may influence bone health.

show abstract

Effect of Probiotic Dietary Intervention on Calcium and Haematological Parameters in Geriatrics

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

The Effect of Probiotics and Synbiotics on Risk Factors Associated with Cardiometabolic Diseases in Healthy People—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials

The Effect of Probiotics and Synbiotics on Risk Factors Associated with Cardiometabolic Diseases in Healthy People—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials

Effects of Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics on Calcium Homeostasis and Bone Health With Aging: A Systematic Review

Gut Microbiota, Immune System, and Bone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About