Dataset Information

The Effectiveness and Safety of Probiotic Supplements for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Preclinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with psoriasis need long-term medication to control their condition. Recent studies suggest that changing the intestinal flora may be a potential treatment.

Methods

The databases were utilized to search the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and preclinical trials about probiotic supplement in the treatment of psoriasis. The retrieval time is from the establishment of these databases to December 2020. RevMan5.3 was used for the risk assessment of bias and meta-analysis. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021232756).

Results

A total of 3 RCTs involving 164 participants were included. Two RCTs showed that probiotics can improve PASI and thereby improve the condition. For inflammation-related indicators, only one RCT showed that probiotics can improve the levels of CRP and TNF-α but have no obvious improvement effect on IL6. One RCT demonstrated the total effective rate of probiotics in the treatment of psoriasis. For adverse events, one RCT showed that the incidence of adverse events of probiotic treatment was low. Preclinical studies showed that continuous intervention with oral probiotics can significantly improve the progression of psoriasis and reduce the expression of inflammatory factors. The meta-analysis showed that the PASI between two groups was of no statistical significance (SMD 1.83 [-0.41, 4.07], P = 0.11). Meanwhile, probiotics may improve skin thickness (SMD -5.87 [-11.34, -0.41], P = 0.04) in animal model.

Conclusion

Prebiotics may have a positive effect on alleviating the clinical symptoms of psoriasis, but a large sample of RCTs is still needed to support its therapeutic effect in psoriasis.

SUBMITTER: Zeng L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8687811 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Nutrition plays an important role in maintaining the overall health of older people. Inadequate intake may lead to impaired body function, higher morbidity, and mortality. Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) showed positive effect on the nutritional status of the elderly; however, systematic evidence is currently lacking on the effect of ONS on the elderly with anorexia. The current systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized controlled trial (RCT) articles to investigate the effectiveness of ONS on the main aspects of anorexia of aging (AA). By using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method, researchers independently searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and other gray literature resources for publications that met the inclusion criteria by October 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools were used for quality assessment. The inverse-variance method was used for the fixed model (FM) while the DerSimonian-Laird method was used for the random model (RM). Respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for indices in terms of effect size (ES). 2497 records were found through the systematic search, while 17 RCTs (n = 1204) were included, with a mean age of 81.9 years (range: 74-87 years). Supplementation occurred in the morning, mid-day, and evening, while the times varied from one to three times a day. The results of meta-analysis showed that, generally, ONS had a positive effect on the overall appetite, MD = 0.18, 95% CI (0.03, 0.33), p = 0.02, and consumption, MD = 1.43, 95% CI (0.01, 2.86), p = 0.05; but not significant in terms of other aspects of appetite: hunger, p = 0.73; fullness, p = 0.60; desire to eat, p = 0.80; preoccupation, p = 0.15. Additionally, it showed an increase in the overall energy intake, SMD = 0.46, 95% CI (0.29, 0.63), p < 0.001, in protein intake, SMD = 0.59, 95% CI (0.16, 1.02), p = 0.007, and in fat intake, MD = 3.47, 95% CI (1.98, 4.97), p < 0.001, while no positive effect was found on carbohydrates intake, p = 0.06. Significance differences were also found in the body weight, SMD = 0.53, 95% CI (0.41, 0.65), p < 0.001, and body mass index (BMI), MD = 0.53, 95% CI (0.12, 0.95), p = 0.01. Moreover, subgroup analyses were conducted according to the nutrient density with no positive results showed except for the low-density ONS on overall energy intake. The results of the present study indicated that ONS had beneficial effects on overall appetite, energy intake, body weight and BMI.

Project description:ObjectiveGut flora imbalance characterizes patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although biotic supplementation has been proposed to lessen inflammation and oxidative stress and, thus, reduce the risk of progressive kidney damage and cardiovascular disease, the effects remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the therapeutic benefits of biotics in CKD.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that evaluated any biotic (prebiotic, probiotic, synbiotics) supplements in patients with CKD (CKD, stage 3-4 to end-stage renal disease). Primary endpoints included changes in renal function, markers of inflammation, and oxidative stress. Secondary endpoints included changes in levels of uremic toxins and variations in lipid metabolism.ResultsTwenty-three eligible studies included 842 participants. In a pooled-analysis, biotics did not change estimated glomerular filtration rate (mean difference [MD] = 0.08, P = .92) or serum albumin (MD = -0.01, P = .86), although prebiotics reduced serum creatinine (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.23, P = .009) and blood urea nitrogen (MD = -6.05, P < .00001). Biotics improved total antioxidative capacity (SMD = 0.37, P = .007) and malondialdehyde (SMD = -0.96, P = .006) and reduced the inflammatory marker interleukin-6 (SMD = -0.30, P = .01) although not C-reactive protein (SMD = -0.22, P = .20). Biotic intervention reduced some uremic toxins, including p-cresol sulfate (SMD = -2.18, P < .0001) and indoxyl sulfate (MD = -5.14, P = .0009), which decreased in dialysis-dependent patients. Another toxin, indole-3-acetic acid (MD = -0.22, P = .63), did not change. Lipids were unaffected by biotic intervention (total cholesterol: SMD = -0.01, P = .89; high-density lipoprotein: SMD = -0.08, P = .76; low-density lipoprotein: MD = 3.54, P = .28; triglyceride: MD = -2.26, P = .58).ConclusionThe results highlight the favorable influence of biotics on circulating markers of creatinine, oxidant stress (malondialdehyde, total antioxidative capacity), inflammation (interleukin-6), and uremic toxins (p-cresol sulfate) in patients with CKD. Biotics did not affect estimated glomerular filtration rate, albumin, indole-3-acetic acid, or lipids in either predialysis or dialysis patients.