463
Views
21
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Effect of probiotics (Lactobacillus plantarum 299 plus Bifidobacterium Cure21) in patients with poor ileal pouch function: a randomised controlled trial

, , , , &
Pages 1087-1092 | Received 03 Dec 2015, Accepted 28 Feb 2016, Published online: 06 May 2016
 

Abstract

Objective: Poor pouch function after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis is a considerable problem. Pouchitis and functional disorders are the most common reasons. Probiotics seem to have a beneficial effect in pouchitis but have not been assessed in functional pouch disorders. The aim was to analyse the effects of probiotics in patients with poor pouch function.

Methods: Thirty-three patients were randomized to probiotics (Lactobacillus plantarum 299 and Bifidobacterium infantis Cure 21) or placebo in a double blinded, 1:1 fashion. The treatment effect was assessed by the pouch functional score (PFS; 0–15, 15 worst), pouchitis disease activity index (PDAI; 0–18, 18 worst), and levels of four faecal biomarkers of inflammation (calprotectin, lactoferrin, myeloperoxidase [MPO] and eosinophilic cationic protein [ECP]).

Results: Thirty-two patients were included (probiotics = 17, placebo = 16). There was no difference in change in the PFS from before to after treatment between the groups (median difference: −1.00, 95% C.I. −3.00 to 0.00, p = 0.119). Furthermore, probiotics had no effect on PDAI (median difference: 0.00, 95% C.I. 0.00–1.00, p = 0.786), or on faecal biomarkers. Significant correlations were observed between PDAI and each of the faecal biomarkers at study start. There were no correlations between PFS or PDAI symptom subscore and the biomarkers. PDAI endoscopic and histologic subscores correlated significantly to each of the biomarkers.

Conclusion: The hypothesis that probiotics improves pouch-related dysfunction was not confirmed. Faecal biomarkers could play a future role in the management of pouch patients.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Probi AB, Lund, Sweden, for the supply of study products.

Disclosure statement

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest with regard to the abovementioned paper. The study sponsors were not involved in the study design; the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; or the writing of the manuscript.

Funding information

The study was supported by Probi AB (SE – 223 70 Lund, Sweden), the Ihre Foundation and the Gothenburg Medical Society.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.