The effects of probiotics in ulcerative colitis patients: a randomized controlled double blind clinical trial

Babak Tamizifar, A. Feizi, Marzieh Rahim khorasani, N. Kassaian, Ali Zamanimoghadam, Shayan Arbabnia, Peyman Adibi Sede
{"title":"The effects of probiotics in ulcerative colitis patients: a randomized controlled double blind clinical trial","authors":"Babak Tamizifar, A. Feizi, Marzieh Rahim khorasani, N. Kassaian, Ali Zamanimoghadam, Shayan Arbabnia, Peyman Adibi Sede","doi":"10.31989/ffhd.v13i11.1098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In the recent decade, ulcerative colitis (UC) as a chronic inflammatory bowel disease has a growing incidence and prevalence in the world.Probiotics might be a promising approach to improve ulcerative colitis by favorably modifying the gut microbiota.  Methods: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted on sixty patients with mild/moderate ulcerative colitis. Participants were administered either placebo (n = 30) or a multi-strain probiotic (n= 30) for 16 weeks. Clinical disease status, via Lichtiger and Mayo questionnaires, was assessed at baseline and after 8 and 16 weeks of intervention. Fecal calprotectin was measured before and after the study period. Within and between groups, comparisons were made using per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) approaches, and a P-value≤0.05 was considered a statistically significant level. Results: Of the sixty patients who agreed to participate in the study, 18 dropped out during the study due to low compliance and gastrointestinal complications. The two groups were comparable in baseline variables (P>0.05). During the study, the within and between groups’ differences of calprotectin and Mayo scores were not statistically significant. Although the mean score of Lichtiger was significantly decreased in the probiotic group during the study period (P = 0.001), no statistically significant differences compared with the placebo group were seen.Conclusion: Our study elucidated that probiotic supplementation does not significantly improve UC patients, which may be due to the strain and dose administered. Future research should focus on the best effective strains and doses for ulcerative colitis.Keywords:probiotic, ulcerative colitis, IBD, clinical trial","PeriodicalId":507841,"journal":{"name":"Functional Foods in Health and Disease","volume":"59 sp2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Functional Foods in Health and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31989/ffhd.v13i11.1098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the recent decade, ulcerative colitis (UC) as a chronic inflammatory bowel disease has a growing incidence and prevalence in the world.Probiotics might be a promising approach to improve ulcerative colitis by favorably modifying the gut microbiota.  Methods: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted on sixty patients with mild/moderate ulcerative colitis. Participants were administered either placebo (n = 30) or a multi-strain probiotic (n= 30) for 16 weeks. Clinical disease status, via Lichtiger and Mayo questionnaires, was assessed at baseline and after 8 and 16 weeks of intervention. Fecal calprotectin was measured before and after the study period. Within and between groups, comparisons were made using per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) approaches, and a P-value≤0.05 was considered a statistically significant level. Results: Of the sixty patients who agreed to participate in the study, 18 dropped out during the study due to low compliance and gastrointestinal complications. The two groups were comparable in baseline variables (P>0.05). During the study, the within and between groups’ differences of calprotectin and Mayo scores were not statistically significant. Although the mean score of Lichtiger was significantly decreased in the probiotic group during the study period (P = 0.001), no statistically significant differences compared with the placebo group were seen.Conclusion: Our study elucidated that probiotic supplementation does not significantly improve UC patients, which may be due to the strain and dose administered. Future research should focus on the best effective strains and doses for ulcerative colitis.Keywords:probiotic, ulcerative colitis, IBD, clinical trial
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
益生菌对溃疡性结肠炎患者的影响:随机对照双盲临床试验
背景:近十年来,溃疡性结肠炎(UC)作为一种慢性炎症性肠病在全球的发病率和流行率不断上升。 研究方法对 60 名轻度/中度溃疡性结肠炎患者进行了双盲、随机、安慰剂对照、平行组临床试验。参与者服用安慰剂(30 人)或多菌株益生菌(30 人),为期 16 周。在基线期以及干预 8 周和 16 周后,通过 Lichtiger 和 Mayo 问卷对临床疾病状况进行评估。研究前后测量了粪便钙蛋白。组内和组间比较采用每方案(PP)和意向治疗(ITT)方法,P值≤0.05为具有统计学意义。结果在同意参与研究的 60 名患者中,有 18 人因依从性低和胃肠道并发症而在研究期间退出。两组患者的基线变量具有可比性(P>0.05)。研究期间,组内和组间的钙蛋白和梅奥评分差异无统计学意义。虽然益生菌组的Lichtiger平均得分在研究期间明显下降(P = 0.001),但与安慰剂组相比,差异无统计学意义:我们的研究阐明,补充益生菌并不能明显改善 UC 患者的病情,这可能与所使用的菌株和剂量有关。关键词:益生菌;溃疡性结肠炎;IBD;临床试验
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Red Panax ginseng root promotes neuronal plasticity in vitro and improves cognitive function in aged animals Weight in relation to feeding practice among two years old children in Al-Hillah City Improvement in autonomic balance through 12-week supplementation of a novel curcumin formulation in healthy Japanese adults: A randomized, placebo-controlled study A comparative study of the effect of extracts extracted from Ocimum basilicum leaves using organic extract and essential oil Monoglucosyl rutin, a flavonoid glycoside, improves low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels in healthy adults: A randomized controlled trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1