scholarly journals Probiotic Therapy for the Treatment of Spondyloarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 2118-2125 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATHERINE JENKS ◽  
SIMON STEBBINGS ◽  
JEREMY BURTON ◽  
MICHAEL SCHULTZ ◽  
PETER HERBISON ◽  
...  

Objective.To investigate the effect of an orally administered probiotic on disease activity, fatigue, quality of life, and intestinal symptoms in patients with active spondyloarthritis.Methods.Patients with active spondyloarthritis [defined as Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≥ 3, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) ≥ 3, Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score (MASES) ≥ 2, or peripheral joint count ≥ 2] were randomized to oral probiotic or placebo for 12 weeks. Patients and assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was 10% improvement in the BASFI. Additional outcome measures were improvements in the ASsessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS)-endorsed core domains: pain, spinal mobility, patient global, peripheral joint and entheseal scores, stiffness, C-reactive protein, and fatigue. The ASAS20 criteria, a composite measure of response, were also applied. Quality of life and bowel symptoms were quantified using the Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (ASQoL) and Dudley Inflammatory Bowel Symptom Questionnaire (DISQ).Results.Sixty-three patients were randomized to oral probiotic (n = 32) or placebo (n = 31). All patients completed the trial. No significant difference was noted between groups in any of the core domains. The mean BASFI fell from 3.5 ± 2.0 to 2.9 ± 1.9 in the probiotic group and from 3.6 ± 1.9 to 3.1 ± 2.2 in the placebo group (p = 0.839). The mean BASDAI fell from 4.2 ± 2.2 to 3.2 ± 2.1 in the probiotic group and 4.5 ± 2.0 to 3.9 ± 2.2 in the placebo group (p = 0.182). No significant adverse events were recorded in the probiotic-treated group.Conclusion.In this randomized controlled trial, the probiotic combination administered did not demonstrate significant benefit over placebo, despite a theoretical rationale for this therapy.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Anouk Borg ◽  
Ciaran Scott Hill ◽  
Besnik Nurboja ◽  
Giles Critchley ◽  
David Choi

OBJECTIVELumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common and debilitating condition that is increasing in prevalence in the world population. Surgical decompression is often standard treatment when conservative measures have failed. Interspinous distractor devices (IDDs) have been proposed as a safe alternative; however, the associated cost and early reports of high failure rates have brought their use into question. The primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness and long-term quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes after treatment of LSS with the X-Stop IDD compared with surgical decompression by laminectomy.METHODSA multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial of 47 patients with LSS was conducted; 21 patients underwent insertion of the X-Stop device and 26 underwent laminectomy. The primary outcomes were monetary cost and QOL measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire administered at 6-, 12-, and 24-month time points.RESULTSThe mean monetary cost for the laminectomy group was £2712 ($3316 [USD]), and the mean cost for the X-Stop group was £5148 ($6295): £1799 ($2199) procedural cost plus £3349 mean device cost (£2605 additional cost per device). Using an intention-to-treat analysis, the authors found that the mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain for the laminectomy group was 0.92 and that for the X-Stop group was 0.81. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was −£22,145 (−$27,078). The revision rate for the X-Stop group was 19%. Five patients crossed over to the laminectomy arm after being in the X-Stop group.CONCLUSIONSLaminectomy was more cost-effective than the X-Stop for the treatment of LSS, primarily due to device cost. The X-Stop device led to an improvement in QOL, but it was less than that in the laminectomy group. The use of the X-Stop IDD should be reserved for cases in which a less-invasive procedure is required. There is no justification for its regular use as an alternative to decompressive surgery.Clinical trial registration no.: ISRCTN88702314 (www.isrctn.com)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document