Probiotics for Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 115 (10) ◽  
pp. 1584-1595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline L. Seiler ◽  
Michel Kiflen ◽  
Juan Pablo Stefanolo ◽  
Julio César Bai ◽  
Premysl Bercik ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline L. Seiler ◽  
Michel Kiflen ◽  
Juan Pablo Stefanolo ◽  
Julio César Bai ◽  
Premysl Bercik ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Abu-Zaid ◽  
Noor Tariq Alhaddab ◽  
Razan Abdulkarim Alnujaidi ◽  
Hadeel Abdulaziz Alharbi ◽  
Fulwah Alangri ◽  
...  

Purpose: The standard of care for treatment of celiac disease (CD) is a stringent lifetime gluten-free diet (GFD), which is very challenging. Larazotide acetate (AT-1001) is an anti-zonulin which functions as a gut permeability regulator for treatment of CD. We endeavored to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which studied the efficacy and safety of larazotide acetate in patients with CD. Methods: We examined four databases from inception to 20-August-2020 using related keywords. We identified all relevant RCTs and judged their risk of bias. We pooled continuous outcomes as mean difference and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio with 95% confidence interval under fixed-effects meta-analysis model. Results: Four RCTs met our eligibility criteria, comprising 626 patients (larazotide acetate, n=465, placebo, n=161). Three and two studies reported outcomes of patients undergoing gluten challenge and GFD, respectively. For change in lactulose-to-mannitol ratio, the overall effect estimate did not reveal a significant difference between larazotide acetate and placebo groups. For change in total gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS), subgroup analysis showed that larazotide acetate significantly yielded better symptomatic improvement in the gluten challenge but not gluten free subgroup. Similar finding was found for change in celiac-disease GSRS (CD-GSRS) favoring the gluten challenge over gluten free subgroup. When compared to placebo, larazotide acetate favorably reduced the adverse event (AE) of gluten-related diarrhea in patients who underwent gluten challenge. Other AEs were comparable between both treatment groups. Conclusions: Larazotide acetate is well-endured and superior to placebo in alleviating gastrointestinal symptoms.


Author(s):  
Gilles Jadd Hoilat ◽  
Abdulaziz Khalaf Altowairqi ◽  
Mohamad Fekredeen Ayas ◽  
Noor Tariq Alhaddab ◽  
Razan Abdulkarim Alnujaidi ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document