Long-Term Use of Probiotics<i>Lactobacillus</i>and<i>Bifidobacterium</i>Has a Prophylactic Effect on the Occurrence and Severity of Pouchitis: A Randomized Prospective Study

Banasiewicz, Tomasz; Stojcev, Zoran; Walkowiak, Jarosław; Marciniak, Ryszard; Grochowalski, Marcin; Burdyński, Robert; Krokowicz, Piotr; Krokowicz, Łukasz; Paszkowski, Jacek; Gronek, Piotr; Pyda, Przemysław; Drews, Michał

doi:10.1155/2014/208064

Cited by 45 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…33,36,40 Furthermore, numerous clinical studies have reported therapeutic efficacy with the use of D(¡), L(C) and DL-Lactic acid producing bacteria without producing D-Lactic acidosis ( Table 2). [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] The misinterpretation of D-Lactate producing bacteria has created an almost deliberate atmosphere of scientific nonsense regarding D(¡)-Lactate producing probiotics. The net result has some industry suppliers of probiotic formulations hastening to deliver D-Lactate free probiotic formulations together with a misinformed marketing hype that misleads and confuses healthcare practitioners and the public, for nothing more than monetary gain.…”

Section: D(¡)-lactate Producing Bacteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Probiotics, D–Lactic acidosis, oxidative stress and strain specificity

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of an implicit living microscopic world, composed primarily of bacteria, has been known for centuries. The exact mechanisms that govern the contribution of bacteria to human health and disease have only recently become the subject of intense research efforts. Within this very evident shift in paradigms, the rational design of probiotic formulations has led to the creation of an industry that seeks to progress the engineering of probiotic bacteria that produce metabolites that may enhance human host health and prevent disease. The promotion of probiotics is often made in the absence of quality scientific and clinically plausible data. The latest incursions into the probiotic market of claims have posited the amelioration of oxidative stress via potent antioxidant attributes or limiting the administration of probiotics to those species that do not produce D-Lactic acid (i.e., claims that D-Lactic acid acidosis is linked to chronic health conditions) or are strain-specific (shaping an industry point of difference) for appraising a therapeutic effect. Evidence-based research should guide clinical practice, as there is no place in science and medicine that supports unsubstantiated claims. Extravagant industry based notions continue to fuel the imprimatur of distrust and skepticism that is leveled by scientists and clinicians at an industry that is already rife with scientific and medical distrust and questionable views on probiotics. Ignoring scientifically discordant data, when sorting through research innovations and false leads relevant to the actions of probiotics, drives researcher discomfit and keeps the bar low, impeding the progress of knowledge. Biologically plausible posits are obligatory in any research effort; companies formulating probiotics often exhibit a lack of analytical understanding that then fuels questionable investigations failing to build on research capacity.

show abstract

Section: D(¡)-lactate Producing Bacteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Probiotics, D–Lactic acidosis, oxidative stress and strain specificity

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a study of 40 patients randomised to VSL#3 or placebo immediately after IPAA, and followed for 1 year, found that VSL#3 was effective in the primary prevention of pouchitis as only 10% of patients on VSL#3 developed acute pouchitis compared with 40% on placebo 89. Other studies evaluating the efficacy of Lactobacillus , Bifidobacterium and Clostridium butyricum in the primary prevention of acute pouchitis did not show benefit 90 91…”

Section: Probioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibiotics and probiotics in inflammatory bowel disease: when to use them?

Abraham

Quigley

2019

Frontline Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antibiotics and probiotics are often used as adjunctive therapy in inflammatory bowel disease. However, data are limited and randomised controlled trials are too inconsistent to provide generalised recommendations for their use in all patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease. Antibiotics are best used in the management of infectious complications and fistulas in Crohn’s disease and, perhaps, in reducing the intensity of inflammation in luminal disease. Ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and rifaximin have been most widely used and studied. On the other hand, there appears to be a limited role for antibiotics in ulcerative colitis (UC). Probiotics are most effective in pouchitis, and may have a role in the initial therapy and maintenance of remission in mild UC; the probiotic cocktail VSL#3 has been the most widely studied. There is scant evidence of efficacy for probiotics in Crohn’s disease.

show abstract

“…One study did not use an appropriate control group for analysis 14 . Two studies focused on the treatment of postoperative infections with probiotics, as opposed to their use as a preventive treatment 15 , 16 . We could not access the full‐text of another study; we contacted the corresponding author but did not receive a response 17 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%