probiotics Archives - Page 7 of 8 - International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP)

Clinical evidence and not microbiota outcomes drive value of probiotics

September 10, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

By ISAPP Board of Directors, plus Prof. Francisco Guarner and Dr. Bruno Pot

September 10, 2018

Two recent papers have generated much adverse publicity for the probiotic field. Headlines driven by sensationalism, not data, claim “Probiotics labelled ‘quite useless’” (BBC) and “Probiotics ‘not as beneficial for gut health as previously thought’” (The Guardian). The quotes are from author Eran Elinav, who generalizes the study findings to all ‘probiotics’ as a class – a generalization that ignores that specific probiotic are meant for specific purposes. This research was published this month in Cell (here and here).

The scope of these papers is limited to microbiome data; no clinical endpoints are assessed. Without clinical evidence, it is not possible to conclude about the tested probiotic’s usefulness, and it is certainly not possible to conclude about probiotic usefulness in general. Stating that probiotics are ‘quite useless’ or ‘not as beneficial’ is, quite simply, wild and factually inaccurate. The authors discount the existing body of evidence for probiotic health benefits, including Level 1 placebo-controlled, randomized trials. Cochrane reviews (the gold standard used by physicians and public health policy makers) of the totality of evidence show that specific probiotics can prevent antibiotic associated diarrhea (AAD) and C. difficile diarrhea. This evidence has been translated into evidence-based recommendations for probiotics issued by medical groups. Regardless of an effect on the microbiota, these are established, evidence-based benefits of probiotics.

No clinical endpoints tracked in either study

What these papers provide is extensive data about the impact of one product containing 11 common probiotic species on different microbiome measures. To the authors’ credit, they analyzed mucosal and luminal samples from humans, in addition to samples from stool. Nonetheless, the probiotic definition [live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confers a health benefit on the host (Hill et al 2014)] does not require that probiotics function via interaction with the microbiota, nor is there much evidence that they alter the microbiota composition in an appreciable manner. Absence of impact on microbiome measures is not evidence that probiotics lack clinical or physiological effects. Probiotics function via many mechanisms that might not be revealed by the measures made in these papers.

Methodological concerns

A careful reading of this paper reveals many methodological concerns.

The extensive data in the paper is an assortment of different types of analyses. For example, for a beta-diversity metric, they sometimes use weighted Unifrac, sometimes unweighted Unifrac, and sometimes Bray-Curtis, without an explanation for their choice. These approaches to presenting the data can give very different results. With the transcriptomics data, sometimes the authors choose samples from the duodenum and sometimes the jejunum. For example, in figure 6, panels C-E compare the difference in gene expression between the naïve group and the treatment in the duodenum, whereas in panels F-H they compare the antibiotic state with the treatment in the jejunum. Such an approach leads the reader to speculate that the authors picked the metrics and data that best fitted the story they wanted to tell. In a well-conducted clinical trial, the statistical plan is registered before the study starts, to assure readers that the scientific process of advancing a hypothesis and designing a study to test the hypothesis is respected.

The probiotic was not administered to human subjects until 7 days after the treatment with antibiotics commenced, after the damage by the antibiotics has been done. Dozens of human studies with specific probiotics have documented that probiotics prevent AAD or C. difficile infection. In most clinical trials, the probiotic is administered together with the antibiotics. A recent meta-analysis concluded that “administration of probiotics closer to the first dose of antibiotic reduces the risk of (Clostridium difficile infection) by >50% in hospitalized adults.” (Emphasis added) The approach in the Suez et al paper is not consistent with the aforementioned clinical studies, with how probiotics are used in clinical practice or with the knowledge of how probiotics most likely prevent AAD. When provided on the same days as antibiotics, probiotics have the opportunity to prevent overgrowth of opportunistic, antibiotic-resistant microbes by competitive exclusion in the ecosystem. Therefore, the microbiome findings of Suez et al likely cannot be applied to clinical trials with such different time course of antibiotic/probiotic administration.

Several conclusions about the effect of probiotics on the microbiota were based on relative abundance measures, which do not relate to actual bacterial numbers or metabolic activity of all relevant species in the gut.

The antibiotic treatment used was potent for a study population that would otherwise not need antibiotics. Volunteers were administered oral ciprofloxacin 500 mg bi-daily and oral metronidazole 500 mg tri-daily for a period of 7 days. They are both very strong and indiscriminate antibiotics, having a severe impact on the gut microbiota. One could question if this drug therapy might have a different impact on the microbiome of a healthy person compared to a patient likely to receive this treatment, i.e., one whose microbiota ecosystem is disrupted by disease or fever.

The probiotic product

A serious issue is that the authors chose a product for this study that has no demonstrated clinical benefits. At a minimum, the product used for this study should have evidence for impact on antibiotic associated conditions, including symptoms or emergence of opportunistic pathogens. The 3 (possibly 2, as the latter 2 appear to be the publication of the same data) human studies conducted on this product (here, here and here), showed no clinical benefit. Thus, the investigators tested the potential benefits of a product for which no benefits had been previously shown. Further, the papers do not adequately describe the product; only a total count (25 billion) is given; counts of each strain – through the end of the administration period – should have been provided. Furthermore, the authors state about the product that “B. longum was probably represented by two strains.” This constitutes imprecise characterization unacceptable in a well-defined probiotic product.

Appearance of author bias

The conclusions reached in the papers promote a personalized approach to probiotic use. In an article on the BBC, the lead author stated, “In the future probiotics will need to be tailored to the needs of individual patients. And in that sense just buying probiotics at the supermarket without any tailoring, without any adjustment to the host, at least in part of the population, is quite useless.” The authors did not disclose they are involved with a company promoting this personalized approach.

Probiotic colonization

The authors suggest that their finding that probiotics do not colonize long term is noteworthy. In fact, researchers in this field have known this for 30 years: most probiotics do not colonize or become established as part of the resident microbiota. A 2016 paper by Madonado-Gomez et al was notable precisely because a Bifidobacterium longum strain was found that did persist. In most cases, probiotic effects are likely mediated by transient effects.

Responders and non-responders

A well-established concept in medicine is that some people respond clinically and physiologically to interventions and others don’t. This is the case with much of probiotic as well as pharmaceutical literature. (See review on responders and non-responders to probiotics by Reid et al.) An individual’s response is likely impacted by diet, resident microbes, host genes and host physiology/health. The validity of a personalized approach to probiotic administration remains to be determined, as evidence for a clinical benefit to the approach is needed. Microbiome data alone are not sufficient.

Need for future research

In the Cell publications, the authors acknowledge their study was limited due to lack of clinical endpoints and the testing of only a single product. It is unfortunate that the press marched ahead with inflammatory stories about the negative effects of probiotics based on such paltry evidence. The scientific community understands that this is one study, on a small number of human subjects, by one research group. Sweeping conclusions cannot be made. There are many hypotheses that can be generated from this study that can lead to follow up studies, which we hope will ensue.

Conclusions

Hundreds of human trials have demonstrated clinical benefits of probiotics and several evidence-based recommendations have been issued by medical organizations. Of course, not all studies are positive. Not all probiotics work for all conditions. But the safety record of probiotics administered to healthy as well as many patient populations is well-established. Numerous media outlets have reported on these two studies as if they are proof that probiotics are useless at best and harmful at worst. This irresponsible reporting may lead people who are benefitting from probiotics to stop using them, potentially causing real harm.

The erroneous interpretation of the current study and previous research by the primary author is disingenuous, as he states, “Contrary to the current dogma that probiotics are harmless and benefit everyone, these results reveal a new potential adverse side effect of probiotic use with antibiotics that might even bring long-term consequences.” This comment and the papers’ conclusions are not corroborated by the totality of safety and efficacy clinical evidence on probiotics, which includes thousands of probiotic-treated subjects. In comparison, the data in Suez et al come from microbiome assessments from only eight probiotic-treated subjects.

Furthermore, this paper evaluated just one product of limited provenance and containing a combination of multiple, incompletely characterized strains. This is in sharp contrast to numerous studies of precisely characterized strains demonstrating well-defined and beneficial engagements with the host. Zmora and colleagues and Suez and colleagues are to be congratulated on their attempts to characterize in detail the impact of one probiotic product on a perturbed, human microbiome. We look forward to further such studies employing well-characterized strains with demonstrated clinical benefits and including relevant clinical endpoints.

Additional reading:

Risk assessment of probiotics use requires clinical parameters

ISAPP comments: International Group of Probiotic Scientists Weighs in on Flawed Conclusions From New Scientific Papers

American Gastroenterological Association response: AGA’s Interpretation of the Latest Probiotics Research

Response by Prof. Gregor Reid: Trying to Close the Stable Door After the Horse Has Bolted

Role of citizen science in research on fermented foods

September 6, 2018/in featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

By Prof. Sarah Lebeer, Universiteit Antwerpen

Spontaneous vegetable fermentations, with their rich flavors and potential health benefits, are regaining popularity among chefs and the general public. Famous Michelin star chefs, such as Belgium’s Kobe Desramaults, have implemented fermented vegetables in their recipes and offer fermented vegetable juices as non-alcoholic alternatives to wine. Serendipity was surely at play when I made contact with Kobe and his team, and had the opportunity to explore the microbial life of many of his fermented food and beverages.

Thanks to this spontaneous collaboration, I became intrigued by fermented vegetables as a promising alternative to dairy probiotic matrices. They have several benefits:

they are lactose-free
they contain no milk allergens
they are naturally vitamin-, antioxidant- and fiber-rich
they are vegan, satisfying the growing dietary trend

Together with prof. L. De Vuyst – a fermented food specialist from the VUB University in Brussels – we attracted a talented PhD student Sander Wuyts to study Lactobacillus’ role in the spontaneous fermentation process of carrot juices. I admit that fermented carrot juice is not the tastiest beverage I ever drank, but the fermentation process turned out to be scientifically intriguing: it appeared to be a robust, man-made microbial ecosystem dominated by lactic acid bacteria. We now often use this fermentation process in my lab as a model to study various aspects of niche-adaptation and niche-flexibility of lactic acid bacteria (LAB). And if you mix carrot juice with another fresh vegetable juice, such as cucumber, you’ll be surprised by its interesting light acidic flavor!

But perhaps the most rewarding part about our fermented-vegetables project was that we managed to carry out a Citizen Science project with the Flemish name, Ferme Pekes. You could translate it as ‘Fantastic Carrots’ 😊. Forty citizens volunteered to set up their own carrot juice fermentations at home and delivered with great enthusiasm samples of different time points. The carrots originated from their own garden, the supermarket or organic stores. Our analysis indicated that origin or organic compared to conventional product did not impact the microbial community composition. But we also could show that the LABs – first Leuconostoc then Lactobacillus – out-competed the undesirable Enterobacteriaceae after 3 to 13 days of fermentation. Longer times were needed for carrots derived from winter storage.

Our analyses (phylogenetic placement and comparative genomics, which was recently published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology) also indicated that a high LAB diversity was achieved in the different spontaneous fermentations. This is of interest if you believe it is important to let our immune system come into contact with a large and naturally diverse dose of beneficial bacteria. This idea has been promoted through the years as the hygiene hypothesis or microbial deprivation theory and aligns perfectly with the surge of interest in the health benefits of naturally fermented foods. See the recent ISAPP blog from Prof. Colin Hill, who advocates for the idea of a recommended daily allowance of consumption of live microbes. (See also a related ISAPP blog here.) Such guidelines should be taken with precaution: the fermentations must be done properly with regard to food safety (see ISAPP blog on Making Safe Fermented Foods at Home).

Citizen Science refers to projects where citizens are actively involved in scientific studies, although it has various definitions and descriptions. In our case, it allowed us to obtain a much larger and more diverse set of samples than we could have created in the lab. Furthermore, the opportunity to directly (on e.g. workshops for adults and kids or at delivery of their samples) or indirectly (as a response to articles in the popular press) communicate with citizens helped us greatly in identifying which other research questions might be of importance for the general public. This approach is increasingly implemented in the fermented food and microbiome field. There are examples of fantastic projects such as on sourdough from Rob Dunn, Benjamin Wolfe and colleagues, the Global FoodOmics initiative and the Flemish Gut Flora project, which will also be presented by Dr. Gwen Falony at our next ISAPP meeting in Antwerp. I am not aware of a Citizen Science project in the probiotic or prebiotic area, but it might be a good idea for a joint ISAPP initiative, for science communication, the creation of richer datasets, validation/confirmation of probiotic efficacy, inspiration for future research questions, for example.

‘Brain fogginess’ and D-lactic acidosis: probiotics are not the cause

August 21, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

Mary Ellen Sanders PhD, Executive Science Officer, International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics

Bruno Pot PhD, Research Group of Industrial Microbiology and Food Biotechnology, Faculty of Sciences and Bioengineering Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium

See here for ISAPP letter to the Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology editor regarding this paper.

Rao and colleagues incriminated probiotics in the induction of D-lactic acidosis in their paper titled “Brain fogginess, gas and bloating: a link between small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), probiotics and metabolic acidosis” (Rao et al. 2018). Eamonn Quigley MD, Bruno Pot, microbiologist and I on behalf of ISAPP authored a letter to the editor of Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology (currently In Press), summarizing many medical and other concerns with the study design, execution and conclusions.

It is regrettable that one poorly controlled paper can lead to such negative backlash on the probiotic field. Respectable media outlets including Newsweek, Science Daily, Psychology Today, the Daily Mail, MSN.com, and others blindly reported the results of this study without critical analysis of the paper. These stories advance the opinion that probiotics are potentially harmful and should be sold only as drugs. This flies in the face of many scientific studies that document safety compounded with safe, worldwide consumption for decades of probiotic foods and supplements.

Bifidobacterium as a genus does not yield D-lactate as a metabolic end product. Some Lactobacillus species do (Table 19.1 in Pot 2014). Among common probiotic Lactobacillus species, the following are classified as species that can produce D-lactic acid: L. acidophilus, L. gasseri, L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus (one of the 2 yogurt starter culture bacteria), L. fermentum, L. lactis, L. brevis, L. helveticus, L. plantarum and L. reuteri. Individual strains within each species may vary with regard to levels of D-lactic acid produced.

The observational nature of the Rao et al. paper precludes any conclusive link between probiotic consumption and symptoms observed. The authors acknowledge that they have only established an association between probiotic use and the symptoms, but the misleading paper title suggests an intention to indict probiotics, even in the absence of evidence. It is much more likely that the patient population with underlying SIBO in this study sought relief from their gut symptoms by use of probiotics rather than the probiotics being the cause of their symptoms.

D-lactic acidosis is a rare but serious condition, typically occurring in people with short bowel syndrome. These patients should know that D-lactate-producing probiotics are not recommended for them. In people with a normal gut, D-lactate produced by members of the gut microbiota – including some probiotics – is metabolized by other members of the gut microbiota and does not accumulate. Thus, under normal circumstances, D-lactic acidosis does not result from consumption of D-lactic acid-producing probiotics. The patients in the Rao et al. study showed very low levels of D-lactic acid, calling into question if these SIBO patients were even acidotic. Moreover, the D-lactic acid that was present was not proven to be a result of probiotic growth. This is important, as intestinal bacteria including Escherichia coli also produce D-lactic acid. In cases of SIBO, numerous metabolites are produced in the small intestine (including alcohol), leading to a variety of SIBO symptoms, possibly including the poorly defined phenomenon of “brain fogginess”. Many issues that should have been were not addressed in the Rao et al. paper.

The real tragedy with the publication of this paper is that – similar to many such media scares in the past – it is may cause harm. The sensationalist headlines may dissuade safe probiotic use in people who can truly benefit from them. Scientists and clinical researchers – both academic and from industry – must remain diligent in assessment and reporting of any probiotic harms. However, the Rao et al. paper is not an example of this.

Reference:

Pot B. 2014. The genus Lactobacillus. Chapter 19. In Lactic Acid Bacteria: Biodiversity and Taxonomy, First Edition. Edited by Wilhelm H. Holzapfel and Brian J.B. Wood. 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

CBER to hold public workshop on regulation of biologics

August 19, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) is convening a public workshop Sept 17 in Rockville MD on the Science & Regulation of Live Microbiome-Based Products Used to Prevent, Treat, or Cure Diseases in Humans. It is now open for registration (free). See here for the program and here for additional info.

The evidence for efficacy, the safety and the regulatory framework for probiotics other live microbiome based products will be discussed. Prof. Dan Merenstein MD, ISAPP’s current Vice President, will speak on evidence, research and clinical use of probiotics for antibiotic associated diarrhea. Although the title suggests the meeting will focus on drugs, Dr. Bob Durkin from the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) of the FDA will speak on probiotic foods and dietary supplements.

This workshop is an opportunity for stakeholders to share with FDA and NIH concerns regarding the regulatory approach to probiotics adopted by the FDA. The path for development of probiotic drugs is reasonably clear. But the road to develop probiotic foods, supplements or microbiome-based dietary strategies to compensate for deficient microbiota is less so. These products are intended to improve gut function, nutritional status, immune status, metabolic properties and more. These are legal functions for foods and supplements, but the FDA doesn’t seem to see it that way.

The FDA has for the most part has approached probiotics as drugs (Sanders et al. 2016). Since probiotics are live microbes, and since CBER deals with drugs that are derived from living sources, CBER often oversees human research on probiotics. But there is no mechanism within CBER to oversee foods and supplements, and hence, human research on probiotics tends to be shunted into the investigational new drug (IND) process. But, the legal definitions of drugs and foods overlap – both can impact the structure/function of the human body and both can reduce the risk of disease. So conducting such research on probiotic foods – and not as part of the IND rubric – should be possible. Perhaps progress on this front can be achieved in the CBER workshop in September.

In a press announcement, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb MD shared FDA perspective on probiotics and promoted this CBER conference. A couple of issues are noteworthy in this announcement by Gottlieb. First, the term ‘probiotic’ is used. Over the years, the FDA largely avoided use of this term, instead favoring the term live biotherapeutic product (LBP). But these terms are not synonymous. Probiotic is defined as a live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confers a health benefit on the host (Hill et al. 2014). It spans multiple regulatory categories. A LBP is by definition a drug. The fact that Gottlieb used the term ‘probiotic’ may signal that he recognizes that not all probiotics are drugs. Second, Gottlieb’s announcement shows awareness that probiotics are legitimate components in foods and dietary supplements and states that the FDA is “committed to working with industry on efforts to provide information that can help consumers make more informed choices about these products.” This is a welcome statement to many researchers involved in probiotic foods and supplements in the United States. It suggests that the FDA is willing to look beyond probiotics as LBPs and develop regulatory approaches for research and claims appropriate to foods and supplements.

Innovation in this field, which has the potential to benefit many people globally, requires regulatory approaches that do not obstruct. Participation in this workshop may lead to improvements that both protect public safety and facilitate academic and industry researchers in the United States on the path to discovery.

Additional information:

Sanders ME, Shane AL, Merenstein DJ. Advancing Probiotic Research in Humans the United States: Challenges and strategies. Gut Microbes 7(2):97-100.

Warning letter from CBER: Dietary Supplements Containing Live Bacteria or Yeast in Immunocompromised Persons: Warning – Risk of Invasive Fungal Disease. Posted 12/09/2014.

Recommended daily allowance (RDA) for microbes?

August 19, 2018/in Consumer Blog, featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

By Prof. Colin Hill, Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre, Food for Health Ireland, University College Cork

In this months’ issue of The Biochemist (August 2018) I explored the concept of whether or not there could be a health benefit to ingesting large numbers of safe microbes in our diet (see the open access article here). This was an effort, though I should stress not a scientifically rigorous effort, to consider the long history of encounters between humans and ingested microbes.

This opinion piece was prompted by a series of open questions which have often puzzled me. Why is so much of our immune system focussed on the gut? Why not simply let the microbes and food constituents pass through and get digested without such strict surveillance? Surely it would be more metabolically favourable to only react to those microbes that breach our epithelial barriers? Why does our enteric nervous system devote so much of its resources to the gut? Why is there a generally beneficial effect of many probiotics across so many health conditions? Why is mother’s milk designed to promote the growth of microbes?

Could the solution to all of these questions be down to a very simple answer? Because the gut ‘expects and requires’ constant encounters with microbes for full functionality. Given that humans evolved into a microbial world, and that we have consumed a diet rich in microbes for most of our evolutionary history, it makes sense that our enteric systems would be designed to appropriately deal with microbes of all types, selecting out those which can cause damage and destroying them, accommodating those which will become part of our microbiomes and letting the rest pass through. Surely we are monitoring and controlling our ‘microbial’ organ in the same way that our eukaryotic organs are monitored and controlled.

Could it be that the rise in autoimmune diseases could be, at least in part, due to an immune system primed to expect more microbes than it currently sees? Should we recommend that a daily dose of safe microbes should be included in dietary guidelines – in the form of more safe raw foods, more fermented foods and more probiotics? It must be emphasized that some serious pathogens must be controlled or eliminated from food – not ALL live microbes are safe. But the goal can be to process only when needed for safety reasons, so foods can be a source of the safe microbes they harbour.

Lots of questions, and not many answers. But I for one am taking account of this concept in my daily diet and am deliberately eating more microbes – I’ll let you know how it goes!

ISAPP publishes new paper on “Human Use of Probiotics”

August 17, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

ISAPP, working with the British publication Nutrition Bulletin, published an open access paper on “Human Use of Probiotics”.

The paper provides an overview of probiotics in the 21^st Century, summarizes health conditions where actionable evidence on probiotic use exists, considers fermented food in the context of probiotics, and provides some regulatory and marketplace perspective.

“Most reviews covering health benefits of probiotics focus on specific conditions in depth. In this paper we try to include all benefits with compelling evidence,” Sanders says.

Access the paper here.

2018 Annual Meeting Report Now Available

August 8, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

The meeting report for the Annual Meeting June 5-7th 2018 ISAPP in Singapore is now available, featuring overviews of the speakers and discussion group conclusions.

Two days of plenary talks focused on the latest science featuring prebiotic and probiotic use in: pediatrics, oral health, allergy immunotherapy, the gut microbiome throughout life, synbiotics, liver disease, honey bee health, chronic gut disorders, and more. The meeting also featured an interesting talk about the changes coming in the nomenclature of the genus Lactobacillus.

The plenary, open sessions were followed by a Discussion Forum on June 7th for invited experts and Industry Advisory Committee Members. The discussion groups focused on:

Harmonizing Global Probiotic and Prebiotic Food/Supplement Regulation
Fermented Foods for Health: East Meets West
Potential Value of Probiotics and Prebiotics to Treat or Prevent Serious Medical Issues in Developing Countries
Prebiotics as Ingredients: How Foods, Fibres and Delivery Methods Influence Functionality

Finally, there were over 70 posters presented at the meeting featuring the latest prebiotic and probiotic research from around the world.

Slides and abstracts for the meeting can be found on the ISAPP website under the “Annual Meetings” tab, available to meeting participants only.

Probiotics for oral health: start young

July 25, 2018/in featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

By Dr. Mary Ellen Sanders

Prof. Wim Teughels from the Department of Oral Health Sciences, Leuven University, spoke at the 2018 ISAPP meeting on the topic of probiotics and prebiotics for oral health. He embraced the opportunity to speak to this audience in part hoping he could convince researchers to consider incorporating oral health endpoints in their future clinical trials.

He did a spot-on lecture, which precisely summarized available evidence for probiotics and prevention of dental caries, management of periodontal disease and reduction of Streptococcus mutans in the oral cavity. This area of research is gaining traction (see here).

One study he discussed is particularly interesting by Stensson et al. 2014 tracked caries in children at 9 years of age. This single-blinded, placebo-controlled study administered L. reuteri ATCC 55730 to mothers during the last month before their baby’s birth and to the children through age one. The number of children receiving the L. reuteri probiotic without caries was significant higher (82%) than in the placebo group (58%). Although there are studies available that show a larger impact, the interesting aspect of this study is that it tests a very early intervention in life that seems to have an effect up to 9 years later. It is an important paper because it opens up the notion of early interventions in life, during microbial ecology development. The main message here is you don’t need to wait until there are teeth to start working on dental health later in life. In fact, interventions for dental health can start during pregnancy and by this:

The pregnant mother will have less pregnancy gingivitis (Schlagenhauf et al. 2016)
The delivered child will be less susceptible to tooth decay and gingival inflammation (Stensson et al. 2014)

We do not know what would have happened if the probiotics were given during the whole 9 years of life. Dentists who are interested in prevention should be interested in such data.

Several meta-analyses have summarized data for dental caries and management of periodontal disease. These reviews are useful in that they summarize the totality of evidence. But combining data on different strains might not be justified, as different strains may utilize different mechanisms to achieve effects, and therefore should not be considered as the same intervention. See here, here, here and here.

In sum, there appears to be a growing body of evidence that probiotic administration may impact several indicators of oral health: dental caries, gingivitis and periodontitis. More research is needed to understand the impact of probiotic supplementation on the oral microbiota and if clinical benefits are mediated by microbiota changes. It’s also important to understand which strains will deliver the strongest benefits, although L. reuteri has several, positive studies, and the importance of dose and temporal factors with dosing.

Dead bacteria – despite potential for benefit – are not probiotics

July 11, 2018/in featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

Re-posted from an original blog article by Dr. Mary Ellen Sanders, ISAPP Executive Science Officer

At the 2018 International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) meeting in Singapore, two renowned speakers reported unpublished research documenting the health benefits of dead bacteria.

Prof. Hill showed that an inactivated Lactobacillus strain reduced anxious behavior, reduced cortisol levels, and impacted the microbiome in a mouse model. Prof. Patrice Cani showed that heat-killed Akkermansia muciniphila were sufficient to ameliorate obesity and diabetes in mice. Both professors made the point that these microbial preparations were not probiotics.

Prof. Colin Hill is the lead author on the oft-cited and -downloaded (over 40,000 times) ISAPP consensus paper reaffirming the definition of probiotics, which emphasizes that probiotics must be alive when administered. This, of course, does not preclude health effects of dead bacteria. One just must remember that dead bacteria are NOT probiotics. Many different types of microbe-derived substances such as metabolites, cell wall fragments, enzymes, and neurochemicals, can have beneficial physiological effects. A 2016 review by de Almada et al. lists a couple dozen published studies of physiologically active dead bacteria.

Preserving the long-accepted definition of probiotics as ‘live microbes’ is important to the many stakeholders involved in the field. Consumers should be able to purchase a product labeled as ‘probiotic’ and know that it contains an effective level of live microbes. Regulators should know that a product without an adequate level of live microbes is fraudulent if called a probiotic. Scientists should be able to use the term and have reviewers and readers understand that they are referring to functions of live microbes. An agreed-upon definition enables us to be precise when discussing an issue. Saying that because dead bacteria have a health effect and they should be called ‘probiotics’ is like saying that because vitamin D has a health benefit, the term ‘vitamin A’ should include vitamin D.

What are implications of the fact that dead microbes may have health effects?

Stewards of the probiotic field can expect increased frustration with popular press writers. I’ll use a recent example to make this point. The June 2018 Cooking Light Magazine /Special Gut Health Issue included an article that lists sourdough bread as a top probiotic-containing fermented food. When the error about misusing the term ‘probiotic’ to describe a food that contained no live probiotic bacteria was pointed out to the editor by Jo Ann Hattner, MPH RD author of Gut Insight, Cooking Light chose to ignore advice from an expert and justify their mistake by using an irrelevant observation that both live and dead cells in probiotic products may generate beneficial biological responses. Apparently, the expertise she derived from a paper that described the “probiotic paradox” trumped the considered opinions of global expert scientists/researchers and the FAO/WHO, who agree that probiotics must be alive when administered. It’s quite a simple concept. It is true that some dead microbes may have some health benefit (although evidence of such an effect is much lower than that available from controlled human trials on actual probiotics), but they are NOT probiotics.

Confusion. Some audiences will be confused by the idea that probiotics that are killed can have health benefits. Inaccurate writers, such as the Cooking Light author above, will perpetuate this error. This is unfortunate, since the probiotic concept is a long-standing one, backed by much mechanistic and clinical evidence. Conflating probiotics with dead bacteria will lead to confusion over important aspects of an effective probiotic product.

Overages. It is not uncommon for commercial products to be formulated with live microbes at time of manufacture that far exceed the number claimed on the label. This is to assure that the product meets label claim at the end of shelf life, as probiotics often die to some extent during storage. Sometimes this ‘overage’ can reach 10-fold more than the level guaranteed on the product, although more typically it’s 2- to 5-fold. If over the course of shelf life the viable count drops to label claim, then dead microbes may comprise as much as 90% of the microbes present. We don’t know if these dead bacteria – although no longer probiotics – have physiological benefits, as no studies have been conducted on this form of inactivated cells, but it’s an interesting possibility. When we study a probiotic product, perhaps that product needs to be characterized by both the level of live and dead microbes that are present. Means of inactivation, such as heat, pressure, irradiation, or sonication, may impact the physiological activity of the resulting dead cells.

Opportunity. Keeping probiotics alive in commercial products is a challenge. Research such as Prof. Cani’s targets an expanded range of microbes – many isolated from the human GI tract – that cannot be easily grown and stabilized in commercial products. Further, these microbes lack the history of safe use that food-associated microbes have, and so administration of high numbers of these next-generation probiotics will require proof of safety. If these microbes can be killed and still deliver health benefits, the commercialization process could be simplified.

ISAPP may need to consider convening another consensus panel to address these newly emerging terms, such as postbiotic and paraprobiotic. Then we can all be on the same page when using these terms, which have important scientific, nutritional and clinical impact. Of course, even if ISAPP does this, authors may still choose to ignore it.

Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies

July 7, 2018/in featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

By Michael D. Cabana, MD, MPH

In the world of clinical trials, reproducibility (or consistency) of results across different clinical trials improves clinicians’ confidence in an intervention (Hill, 1965). However, when reviewing the evidence for a probiotic or prebiotic supplement, the results are sometimes conflicting. One study claims an intervention may work. Another study claims that an intervention may not work. So how does the clinician deal with this situation?

To know how much confidence to place in any claim of benefit, clinicians need to consider the totality of the evidence and the quality of the studies. One tool is the systematic review process, which in an unbiased manner searches for all studies for a particular intervention, and when possible, combines results into a meta-analysis. The ‘summary’ of these data point to either an effect or no effect. The best way to combine data is using an individual patient-data meta-analysis (IPDMA). In addition, a clinician should determine whether the clinical trial is an effectiveness study or an efficacy study (Singal 2014).

Efficacy or Effectiveness?

Efficacy studies ask, “does the intervention work in a defined (usually an “ideal”) setting?” In general, the inclusion criteria for study participants will be very selective. Patient adherence tends to be closely monitored. The clinicians conducting the trial may be specially trained in the intervention and its application. The intervention occurs in an ideal setting and the risk of other confounding interventions (e.g., unusual diets, concurrent treatments) will be limited.

On the other hand, effectiveness studies ask, “Does the intervention work in a real-world setting?” The inclusion criteria for study participants tends to be less selective. Patient adherence to the protocol is not necessarily strictly enforced. The clinicians conducting the trial tend to be representative of the typical physicians who would treat this condition. The intervention occurs in a more ‘real-world’ setting where the presence of other confounding factors may be present.

For example, two relatively recent studies both examined the effect of a probiotic intervention, L. reuteri DSM 17938 for the treatment infant colic. A study conducted by a team in Italy (Savino et al. 2010) noted that the intervention reduced colic symptoms; however, the study conducted by a team in Australia (Sung et al. 2014) showed no effect on colic.

Why the different results? In the Italian study, all the infants were breastfed. In addition, the breastfeeding mothers limited their dairy intake. The infants tended to be younger (mean age 4.4 weeks) and tended not to have other treatments for colic or gastrointestinal symptoms. In contrast, the infants in the Australian study were breastfed or formula fed. The infants were older (median age 7.4 weeks) and were more likely to have been exposed to other treatment for gastrointestinal symptoms (such as histamine-2 blocker or proton pump inhibitors). The infants were recruited from many different settings such as the emergency department.

Although both the Italian and the Australian study evaluated the same probiotic intervention for the same condition, the studies offer different information in terms of efficacy and effectiveness. Describing a study as either an “efficacy” study or an “effectiveness” study is not always dichotomous. Rather, these studies exist on a spectrum, from being more like an efficacy study versus more like an effectiveness study. In the example above, the Italian study had stricter criteria and fewer confounding factors. As a result, it would tend to be classified as an efficacy study. The Australian study enrolled infants with colic who were older and had a greater likelihood to be exposed to other interventions. This study would tend to be classified as more of an effectiveness study. The fact that the Australian study was a null study does not mean that the intervention was not effective in the ‘real world’. Rather, for the patients enrolled, the treatment was not effective when used in that particular setting and context. Perhaps you may encounter infants with colic who have feeding history and medical history more like the infants from the Italian study. Understanding the context of the studies helps identify those characteristics that may or may not apply to the infants with colic who you may treat in your clinic.

Which is better: Efficacy or Effectiveness?

When developing a new or experimental intervention, an efficacy study might be important to increase the likelihood of detecting a positive change. However, “real world” factors may make a difference in how a product is used. Perhaps an intervention might be inconvenient (due to multiple doses throughout the day) or unpalatable for the patient. Perhaps the dosing regimen is complicated and the primary care providers don’t apply the correct dosing for patients. In these cases, an effectiveness study might be a better guide to how useful the intervention will be in clinical practice.

As a final note, it can be tempting to simply read the abstract of a clinical trial to assess the results of a study. However, in many instances the crucial details of the study (e.g., how the study participants were selected, who was included or excluded, what type of clinical setting was used) are buried in the methods section of the study. Patient diet, exposure to other treatments and comorbid conditions are all common confounding factors encountered in trials evaluating supplements. When reading through the literature and understanding if a study is applicable to your practice, be sure to understand the full context and purpose of the study. “Was this study useful for determining clinical efficacy or clinical effectiveness?” is an important question for readers of probiotic and prebiotic clinical trials. Keeping this question in mind may help you better resolve what may appear to be inconsistency among clinical trials.

East meets West at ISAPP’s first meeting in Asia

June 27, 2018/in featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

By Mary Ellen Sanders, PhD

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) recently convened its first meeting held in Asia, with the modern hub of Singapore as a host city. The meeting featured a two-day open registration meeting, attended by nearly 250 scientists, health professionals, and industry representatives, and a third day of smaller discussion groups by invitation. The meeting provided a rare opportunity for non-members to attend. It provided a dynamic forum for sharing different clinical experiences and regulatory nuances amongst the continents, as well as allowing attendees to better appreciate the research being performed in the Asian region.

Here are a few speaker highlights:

Mimi Tang MD

Tang presented the results of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial examining the effect of probiotic supplementation combined with oral immunotherapy (OIT) to decrease the risk of peanut allergy in children. Peanut allergy is one of the fastest growing food allergies in children. In the Probiotic and Peanut Oral ImmunoTherapy [PPOIT] study, children randomized to the intervention group had increased rates of sustained responsiveness to peanut several weeks after discontinuation of the treatment. Tang discussed the implications of the study, as well as current, larger clinical trials that are building upon these findings.

Dr. Bruno Pot

The Lactobacillus genus is taxonomically abnormally heterogeneous. Currently, the 231 Lactobacillus species range from a genome size of 1.23 – 4.91 megabases, have a GC content of 32-57% and an average nucleotide identity that is typical for a family or worse. Such ranges are far beyond what is acceptable for a bacterial genus. Experts are recommending that the current genus should be split into 12 new genera. Some well-known lactobacilli would be re-named, which may have important repercussions commercially and legally.

Profs. Colin Hill and Patrice Cani

Hill described how lactase in yogurt cultures improves lactose digestion; he emphasized how mechanisms that drive probiotic activity are complex. Some scientists are searching for a single molecule that drives probiotic health benefits—but it is unlikely to be found.

Hill noted even inactivated (non-living) microbes may have health effects—for example, a study showed that a dead Lactobacillus strain reduced anxious behavior, reduced cortisol levels, and impacted the microbiome in a mouse model. Work by Prof. Patrice Cani showed that heat-killed Akkermansia muciniphila were sufficient to ameliorate obesity and diabetes in mice. Does this suggest that we will need to start quantifying probiotics based on biomass as well as CFU?

Profs. Hani El-Nezami, Gregor Reid and Akihito Endo

These three speakers illustrated the important impact of environmental toxins (extremely potent aflatoxins, pesticides, and heavy metals) on humans and wildlife. They showed how certain probiotic strains can decrease aflatoxin absorption and even degrade them; sequester heavy metals and pesticides to reduce their uptake; and enhance resistance to honey bee colony collapse disorder that threatens the world’s food supply.

Prof. Wim Teughels

To date, 11 studies have been published on probiotics with a low ‘number needed to treat’ for prevention of dental caries in infants, toddlers, and adults. One study showed the benefits of administered L. reuteri, following children for nine years after they were treated as infants before any teeth had emerged. Also, data exist for probiotics influencing other oral health endpoints, including periodontal infections, oral candida infections, and halitosis.

The discussion groups on day three of the conference addressed a range of topics:

Possibilities to harmonize global probiotic and prebiotic regulations—Chaired by Seppo Salminen (Finland), Yuan Kun Lee (Singapore), and Gabriel Vinderola (Argentina)
Fermented foods for health: East meets West—Chaired by Bob Hutkins (USA), Paul Cotter (Ireland), and Liu Shao Quan (Singapore)
Potential value of probiotics and prebiotics to treat or prevent serious medical issues in developing countries—Chaired by Daniel Merenstein (USA), Reuben Wong (Singapore), and Colin Hill (Ireland)
Prebiotics as ingredients: How foods, fibres and delivery methods influence functionality—Chaired by Glenn Gibson (England) and Karen Scott (Scotland)

These workshops often produce peer-reviewed publications based on the discussion outcomes, so stay tuned for these developments. (See here for a list of ISAPP publications.)

The full meeting report is being developed and will be posted on the ISAPP website shortly.

The 2019 meeting will return to ISAPP’s normal format, hosted by Dr. Sarah Lebeer in Antwerp, Belgium.

Welcome Seppo Salminen – ISAPP’s New President

June 19, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

An interview with Prof. Seppo Salminen

ISAPP President 2018-2021

1) What are your goals as the next president of ISAPP?

My goal is to work together with the board and the members to advance excellence in the science of probiotics and prebiotics and to share research and conclusions with as wide an audience as possible. It is also my goal to leverage ISAPP’s scientific expertise to work with organizations to promote evidence-based applications of probiotics and prebiotics to advance health and well-being of people.

2) What do you hope to see the organization accomplish during your tenure?

ISAPP is engaged now in North America, Europe and Asia so maybe we can be really be global and reach out to South America and connect with researchers in Africa as we have done with Professor Reid earlier. I would like to work toward common goals with more industrial, scientific and regulatory experts from different parts of the world.

3) What changes do you foresee in the field of probiotics and prebiotics in the next few years?

I foresee rapid development in probiotics and prebiotics. There will be novel microorganisms developed and novel sources of prebiotics and this direction leads to challenges in safety evaluation and efficacy demonstration as well as communication of the results to larger audiences.

4) How did you originally become involved in ISAPP?

I was originally invited to one ISAPP meeting, then to the next one, then to the third one and at the end was invited to be a member of the board, which I considered a special honour!

5) Which ISAPP meeting was your favorite so far?

They all have been excellent, but some I remember (each for different reasons) are the ones in Barcelona, New York, Chicago and Berkeley – and now Singapore. Of course, the one in Turku, Finland as well – when you help organize a meeting like that you certainly remember even on a minute-by-minute basis.

Thank you Prof. Salminen and welcome!

ISAPP’s First Meeting in Asia is a Huge Success

June 8, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

June 5-7th 2018 ISAPP held it’s first Asian meeting in Singapore. This open registration meeting was a huge success with over 240 attendees from 34 countries.

Two days of plenary talks focused on the latest science featuring prebiotic and probiotic use in: pediatrics, oral health, allergy immunotherapy, the gut microbiome throughout life, synbiotics, liver disease, honey bee health, chronic gut disorders, and more. The meeting also featured an interesting talk about the changes coming in the nomenclature of the genus Lactobaccilus.

The plenary, open sessions were followed by a Discussion Forum on June 7th for invited experts and Industry Members. The discussion groups focused on:

Harmonizing Global Probiotic and Prebiotic Food/Supplement Regulation
Fermented Foods for Health: East Meets West
Potential Value of Probiotics and Prebiotics to Treat or Prevent Serious Medical Issues in Developing Countries
Prebiotics as Ingredients: How Foods, Fibres and Delivery Methods Influence Functionality

Finally, there were over 70 posters presented at the meeting featuring the latest prebiotic and probiotic research from around the world.

Next year, ISAPP will be hosting an invite-only meeting in Antwerp, Belgium – May 14-16, 2019. To attend this meeting, join ISAPP as an Industry Member.

ISAPP’s Outgoing President: Karen Scott

June 7, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

Dr. Karen Scott of the Rowett Institute of the University of Aberdeen has served as the ISAPP President for the last three years. During her time as President, ISAPP has seen some incredible growth and accomplishments, and the organization is so grateful for her leadership.

Last year, under Karen’s leadership, ISAPP produced a prebiotic consensus panel paper, which remains one of the highest cited papers in nature reviews gastroenterology and hepatology.

In addition, over the last three years the Science Translation Committee has produced nine infographics, four videos, monthly blog posts, and a monthly newsletter focused on disseminating clinical and consumer information on probiotics and prebiotics.

Karen led three successful ISAPP Annual Meetings – Turku in 2016, Chicago in 2017, and ISAPP’s first meeting in Asia which took place in Singapore in 2018. All of these meetings followed her acting as local host for the 2014 ISAPP meeting in Aberdeen.

ISAPP’s mission to educate resulted in numerous outreach activities over the last three years including continuing education opportunities, webinars, the USP expert panel on probiotics, and regulator engagements. In terms of advancing the science, under Karen’s leadership ISAPP has published 21 peer-reviewed articles on probiotics and prebiotics.

Finally, industry involvement in ISAPP has remained strong and steady during Karen’s term, with 40-45 industry members from around the world. These industry members support ISAPP’s activities and participate in the annual meeting each year to hear about the latest probiotic and prebiotic science available.

Thank you so much Karen for your dedication and hard work to advance scientific excellence in probiotics and prebiotics.

Medscape Webinar on Probiotics – Now Available!

June 4, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

“Navigating the world of probiotics: Helping patients make good choices”

This 30-min CME activity, which took place on April 17th, by Medscape is now available online https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/897109 The webinar features Prof. Dan Merenstein MD and Mary Ellen Sanders PhD – both ISAPP Board Members.

ISAPP is coming to Asia – the hidden reason

May 19, 2018/in featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

By Prof. Glenn Gibson

In just a few days ISAPP will host its first meeting outside of Europe or North America, when we have an open conference in Singapore^1,2. There are about 200 registrants and we cannot wait. The meetings are always scientifically informative but fun also. These are main drivers behind our annual jamboree, but this year there is another task…… I am hoping that first timers to ISAPP, and particularly our Asian friends, break with tradition and pronounce the name of the organisation correctly.

I have written one blog in the 56 years of my existence. This first was last year on the various social events we have at the meetings. But this was prior to Chicago in 2017, where we had a bowling alley experience. My PhD student Xueden Wang (Holly) has never let us forget her winning efforts at this:

The above picture and Holly’s endless bragging came to an abrupt end however, when we had our lab Christmas party in December³ – also at a bowling alley this time in Wokingham UK:

Let’s call that revenge of the supervisor shall we? The open top bus parade is now cancelled Holly I am afraid. By the way, if you don’t know what Chicago or Wokingham look like, then both are pictured below. I will leave you to guess which is which:

Anyway, I disgress (justifiably). This is therefore my second blog, and there is a reason for dusting off the quill pen and rehearsing the hieroglyphics once more.

In the last few years ISAPP has published 2 consensus papers, one on probiotics and one on prebiotics⁴. What we cannot agree on, however, is how to say the name of our esteemed society. Some say ISAPP with the I as “eye”, while others say ISAPP (with the I as in sIt). Admittedly, there is a slight bias in numbers as it is possible to count on the fingers of one finger the number of people who use the latter. It is me. So, that makes about 852 attendees at previous ISAPP meetings incorrect.

Think of the full name of the ISAPP organisation and say it to yourself now…………………

Did anyone say Eye-Nternational? Or did you say International?

At this stage, I should just say that the case for the prosecution is concluded and no further witnesses your honour!

However, let’s look at things a little more closely. If the anarchists, heretics and Eye-Sappers get their way then we may need to change the logo of the organisation to:

We see the letter “I” in front of many things these days such as i pad, i mac , i max, i alex cross, i pod, i robot. A quick search of the internet (or as some say eyeNternet) suggests that the “I” can stand for individual, imagination or internet, but usually refers to intelligent. We might have to live with ISAPP standing for intelligent sapps. Here is a picture of 2 saps:

Still, 852 people can’t be wrong. I’ll put that another way – 852 people are wrong. So the spotlight turns to Singapore to show us the light, the truth and the way forward.

But……. It gets worse. The terms probiotic and prebiotic are not used on products in Europe now as they are an implied health benefit. Let’s put aside that the very body who devised this “rule” have turned down all but about one health claim. If we go along with this puffed up lunacy⁵ then we might have to call ISAPP:

International Scientific Association for @%?!&.. and @%?!&..

Maybe we can get away with just using the first letters of these disgustingly offensive, abhorrent and abusive terms. So, ISAPP becomes:

International Scientific Association for P@%?!&.. and P@%?!&..

It still does not seem right, so ISAPP becomes:

International Scientific Association for PAP

Now we are getting somewhere, as PAP means “Noun. 1. Nonsense, rubbish. 2. Faeces. Verb. To defaecate. e.g. ‘He was so scared he papped his pants.’.” This embodies exactly what ISAPP is all about and where pro/prebiotics work!!! So, I propose another new logo:

¹I’ll be flying there with British Airways. One highlight is always the safety demo where they say “in the unlikely event that the plane should land on water.” I always feel that “unlikely” is not quite definitive enough. If you were to ask at check in about the chances of the 777 landing on water and the reply was “er… well…on balance it is unlikely”, you would probably not board the old crate.

²Travel tip: Always aim for row 13 and upon reaching it say “oh no, me and my luck, I’m in death row again”, it often leads to vacating of the seat next to you.

³Also attended by a group of leading food science researchers, who face such crucial issues as:

What is there in a chicken that makes an eggshell?
Why do we not eat turkey eggs?
Why is marmalade not just called orange jam?
How is some cheese orange when it made from milk?
Why are small chocolate bars called “fun size” when they are about half of what they should be?

⁴By the way, in the olden days (1995) I wanted to call prebiotics parabiotics. Only because MASH was on TV at the time and featured paramedics. So these could be known as biotics that help medics.

⁵Please note that these opinions are those of the author and do not represent the views of EYESAPP, aside from Gregor.

ISAPP Releases 2017 Annual Report

May 3, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

The 2017 Annual Report on ISAPP’s activities to advance scientific excellence in probiotics and prebiotics is now available. The Report covers the 2017 Annual Meeting in Chicago IL, as well as the publications, webinars, meetings and other activities accomplished during the past year. Finally, ISAPP is grateful to the 43 Industry Advisory Committee Members who support ISAPP’s endeavors. See more here.

Continuing Education Opportunity on Probiotics and Prebiotics Now Available for Pharmacists

April 12, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

ISAPP Board member and Professor of Medicine, Dan Merenstein MD, served as faculty for a new continuing education activity on probiotics and prebiotics. “The Expanding Health Benefits of Prebiotics and Probiotics” was developed by Pharmacy Times and is available free of charge here (registration is required to log in to access the materials). This concise, practice-oriented review summarizes evidence for probiotic interventions for clinical conditions and is an excellent summary for all healthcare practitioners.

Medscape Webinar on Probiotics April 17

April 10, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

Prof. Dan Merenstein MD and Mary Ellen Sanders, PhD will present a 30 min webinar titled, “Navigating the World of Probiotics: Helping Patients Make Good Choices” April 17 at 12:30 ET*. Developed by Medscape, the target audience is medical professionals. Dr. Sanders will provide basic information about choosing probiotics and Prof. Merenstein will discuss the strength of evidence for different clinical applications for probiotics. The webinar is free, but you must register with Medscape to sign up. Register here.

*An earlier announcement by Medscape listed the wrong time zone.

Updated Clinical Guide to Probiotics Now Available

April 9, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

Want some guidance on knowing which probiotic products have been tested for which clinical benefits, and understand the level of evidence supporting those benefits? Check out the 2018 versions of Clinical Guide to Probiotic Products Available in USA and Clinical Guide to Probiotic Products Available in Canada. Currently, these are the only 2 geographical regions covered by this initiative, although they are considering expanding to other regions. This guide is updated annually. Some changes for 2018 include addition of new indications ‘Mood and affect’, ‘Liver health’, ‘Weight management’ (Canada) and ‘Seasonal allergies’ and ‘Eczema/Dermatitis-Adult’ (United States). Evidence is reviewed independently by six academic experts and graded as Level I (highest), II or III. A grade of Level I requires evidence from at least one properly designed randomized human trial. This guide is produced by the Alliance for Education on Probiotics, and is an industry funded effort (see industry sponsors for US and Canadian versions).

ISAPP to host live webinar: Microbial metabolism associated with health

March 15, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

Update April 16, 2018: Recording and slides from the webinar available here.

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), in partnership with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe’s Prebiotics and Functional Foods Task Forces, has jointly organized a free webinar, titled “Microbial Metabolism Associated with Health”. The webinar runs April 12^th, 2018 at 15:00 CET, and will highlight recent activities of both ISAPP and ILSI on the beneficial aspects of gut microbial fermentation. The specific focus will be on gut microbiota functions, the effects of the intestinal microbiota on selected nutrients and non-nutrients, and the health benefits of fermented foods. Scientists from both academia and industry may find the webinar of interest. Sign up here.

Webinar participants will learn the status of the science making the links between live microorganisms in the diet and host health. The host gut microbiota is a key factor in determining gut function, nutritional status, biochemical transformations of food and the overall impact on health. This diverse microbial community inhabiting the human gut assists in food metabolism and contributes to the bio-availability of nutrients and non-nutrients; it also has an extensive metabolic repertoire that complements mammalian enzymes in the liver and gut mucosa. Microbial metabolism is an important factor to consider when discussing the management of host health and conditions such as obesity and metabolic syndrome.

The enhanced nutritional and functional properties of fermented foods are being increasingly recognized; not only do microbes transform the substrates and form bioactive or bioavailable end-products, but also, fermented foods contain live microorganisms genetically similar to the strains found in probiotics. The webinar will cover the possible interactions of fermented foods and beverages with the gut microbiota, and potential links to health.

The 90-minute live webinar will be hosted on StreamGo, and will include a question and answer period at the end. There is no cost; however, participants are required to register online beforehand.

Speakers:

Effects of the Intestinal Microbiota on Selected Dietary Components
a) Introduction and Background to the Activity (Dr. Colette Shortt, Johnson & Johnson, UK)
b) Impact of Intestinal Metabolism and Findings (Prof. Ian Rowland, University of Reading, UK)
Health Benefits of Fermented Foods: Microbiota and Beyond (Prof. Robert Hutkins, University of Nebraska, USA)

Publications from ISAPP and ILSI-Europe related to the webinar topics:

Systemic review of the effects of the intestinal microbiota on selected nutrients and non-nutrients. Colette Shortt et al. 2018.
Gut microbiota functions: metabolism of nutrients and other food components. Ian Roland et al. 2017.
Health benefits of fermented foods: microbiota and beyond. Maria L Marco et al (including Robert Hutkins). 2017.

Academics working with industry

March 12, 2018/in featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

by Dr. Colin Hill, APC Microbiome Ireland & School of Microbiology, University College Cork, Ireland

Many scientists have reservations about working with industry. While characterising it as going over to the dark side might be an overstatement, there is a certain wariness that principles may have to be compromised (in terms of the ambition of the work and the freedom to follow your nose that is the supposed hallmark of ‘pure’ research), dull routine work may have to be performed, and publication in the best journals will be unlikely. There may also be concerns that students or post-docs working on ‘industry’ projects may suffer from these constraints, which will restrict their career development. There can also be a perception that the ‘best’ scientists work on fundamental problems, unfettered by the demands of industrial partners or short-term commercial goals. Some of you reading this opening paragraph may be amused at the simplicity of this stereotyping – “no one really thinks like that” – but I can assure you that some do, including a younger version of myself.

I have only really worked closely with industry in the last decade. Before that, I wrote grants which assured potential funding agencies that what I wanted to investigate was incredibly relevant and important, would represent good value for the taxpayers’ investment, but was just a ‘little bit too early’ for industry to take on. I genuinely believed this for the most part, although part of getting older is learning that fooling myself has always been a much easier task than fooling anyone else. Nonetheless, I managed to forge a career in science. I had a reasonable success rate of about one in four or five applications, which still seemed a poor return for the effort involved. I would take my hard-earned funding and do my best to deliver on the promises I had made. On occasion, the grants were successful, and we ended up filing a patent or developing a prototype or a process and essentially delivering on the promises made in the grant application. But all too often I discovered that what we had achieved, or the problem we had solved, was not really the burning issue I had thought it to be, or at least could not be translated for the benefit of society without suitable industry partners. In essence, we had self-tasked ourselves to solve a problem that no one really needed to be solved (or, at least not yet, or not in the precise manner we had solved it).

Of course, on occasion I was successful in getting truly ‘fundamental’ or ‘basic’ grants which were simply aimed at generating knowledge, and these were absolutely vital in developing new skills and opening up new research areas and possibilities. However, over the past decade or more, I have begun to work closely with industry partners. At first, this was driven by changes in funding policy in Ireland which linked scientific excellence to industry relevance – grants had to pass rigorous peer-reviewed scientific assessment, but also had to be validated by an industry partner willing to put skin in the game in the form of co-funding. This necessitated finding industry partners and identifying a research problem together, before developing a solution. I hope that now I have a perspective on both aspects of scientific research – often simplistically referred to as basic versus applied research – and I have good news. Working with industry can be just as scientifically rewarding as not working with industry.

As I have experienced it, working with industry has several obvious advantages.

Relevance. You know the research problem posed is one that genuinely needs solving, and the industrial partner for any solution you may develop is already engaged.
Funding. Once you begin to work with an industry partner, the prospect of getting funding is much higher than in most competitive grant applications and the amount available may be defined by the extent of the problem, not the limit of a particular funding call.
Intellectual capital. Most of the industry people you will be dealing with are also scientists, and they are just as clever, or far cleverer, than you (or me). They will have defined goals but also have the same scientific curiosity which can be harnessed within the project.
Flexibility. If you have embarked on the project and you find you have gone down a blind alley, it is usually possible to have a discussion with your partners and change the project design. You don’t have to go back to the funders for permission to adjust the dreaded Gantt chart and ‘deliverables’, or have to justify to grant reviewers why you have gone off track. If a project extension is required you can often simply argue for it, no need to write a new grant and experience the inevitable downtime ‘between funding’.
Urgency. Working with a student or a post-doc on a problem can be exciting, but sometimes a good or a bad result seems important only to the two of you. It really adds urgency when an industry meeting is looming on the horizon, when you know the funders are directly invested in the outcomes of the experiments, and when the pressure really builds on the team. In these moments some intense brainstorming and problem-solving can be required, which can create a real sense of excitement within the project and which can be a tremendous learning experience for junior members of the team.
Career development. Most of the students and postdocs in the lab will not end up in academia, nor should they. It is valuable training for young scientists to have a first-hand exposure to industry-based science so that they can make an informed choice on their next step in their career.

Are there negatives? Well, honestly, not all industry sponsored research involves cutting edge science. But if you are completely uninterested in the outcomes then don’t take it on. What about bias? Does industry funding create a bias towards positive outcomes? I genuinely have not found this to be the case. Reputable industry partners have no interest in biased results, since the company’s reputation is at stake and of course, no one is more invested in the scientific validity of their product than the industry partner. And given that science is ultimately self-correcting no reputable scientist wants to be associated with misleading outcomes. Individuals on either side can make mistakes or display bias, but that is no less true in the basic sciences.

The ideal academic-industry relationship recognises that there have to be rewards for both partners. For both it is really important that the experiments be conducted to the highest possible standards with appropriate controls. For the academic the right to publish the results in a timely fashion is particularly important when junior scientists are involved and a clear understanding of how results will be disseminated must be reached before the collaboration gets underway. For the industry partner, it is important that the work stay focused on the agreed goals of the project and not veer off into the ‘nice to know’ rather than ‘need to know’ areas of the research problem. As in most things, problems can be avoided by having a clear agreement on the goals, methods and publication strategy and having transparent reporting structures. Further, both sides must put effort into maintaining a good working relationship.

Finally, it is not a binary choice – working with industry obviously does not close off any other type of research you may want to perform. You can still write grants and get funding from other sources. In fact, I would propose that the ideal research mix requires an element of exploratory science to keep the laboratory fresh and industry-funded science to ensure relevance. And when in doubt always defer to the great Louis Pasteur, who said “There are no such things as applied sciences, only applications of science”.

Two Free Webinars on Probiotics!

March 12, 2018/in featured, News /by Mary Ellen Sanders

Both webinars – eligible for continuing education credit – on probiotics involving ISAPP board members are scheduled. The first is scheduled for Thursday, March 15th 11am-noon CST. It features Mary Ellen Sanders, PhD on the topic of “Be a Pre and Probiotic Pro” and is sponsored by General Mills Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition. Register here.

The second, “Navigating the World of Probiotics: Helping Patients Make Good Choices,” is under development by Medscape. Both Prof. Dan Merenstein MD and Mary Ellen Sanders, PhD will speak during this 30 min webinar. It will take place April 17. Register here.

ISAPP Goes to India

February 28, 2018/in featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

By Mary Ellen Sanders PhD and Dan Merenstein MD

ISAPP sent two key-note speakers to the Probiotics Association of India meeting, held Feb 16-17 in New Delhi. Prof. Dan Merenstein MD spoke on “Evidence for clinical indications: how do probiotics measure up?” and Dr. Mary Ellen Sanders addressed “Is it time for live cultures to be included in official dietary recommendations?” Dr. Merenstein also gave a second talk on an ISAPP-supported project: the evidence that probiotic consumption can reduce antibiotic utilization. This is the 3^rd PAi meeting that ISAPP has supported through speaker sponsorship.

The meeting featured talks on synbiotics to prevent late-term sepsis (Pinaki Panigrahi), the impact of diet on the Indian gut microbiome (Yogesh Shouche), autism (Sheffali Gulati) and 10 selected student/young investigator presentations on diverse microbiota/probiotic studies. Because of the high quality student presentations, judges were unable to choose the best to award prizes. The solution: all 10 presentations were awarded 5000 INR, supported by Prof. Pinaki Panigrahi’s Center for Global Health and Development. A poster session and original probiotic-themed drawings (see below for one submission) were also presented.

Dr. Sanders also spoke on “The contribution of probiotics to health” in an event held February 15 sponsored by the Gut Microbiota and Probiotic Science Foundation (India). This event was attended by ~150 professionals in nutrition, medicine and microbiota/probiotic research.

Of course, the trip was not all work. Below, Mary Ellen takes a selfie with her new elephant friend, Sampa.

Probiotics and Good Gut Health. An artistic interpretation by a student, Simranjeet Singh.

Mary Ellen Sanders takes selfie with Sampa, a 62-year old Asian elephant.

Probiotics: the importance of the complete product

February 11, 2018/in featured, ISAPP Science Blog /by Mary Ellen Sanders

February 11, 2018. By Dr. Olaf F.A. Larsen, Assistant Professor (0.2 FTE) at Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Science Manager at Yakult Netherlands.

Probiotics are, according to the WHO and later updated by a consensus panel convened by ISAPP, defined as “live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host”. Most scientific literature ties probiotic properties to individual strains, although evidence suggests that some health benefits may generalize to the species or genus level. Another important factor in how a probiotic performs is the type of matrix (e.g., a milk drink) that carries the probiotic. Indeed, many successful commercial probiotic products are largely defined by both the probiotic contained and the final product format. A plethora of probiotic products are available, ranging from fermented milks/yogurts, cereal products, juices and freeze-dried products (powders and pills). Some products claim to be probiotic but lack substantiation, such as “probiotic” pizzas and mattresses. It is likely that the probiotic properties are not solely determined by the probiotic strain itself, but also by the harbouring matrix. Hence, in order to fully understand the parameters that drive functionality of a specific probiotic, the total product should be evaluated.

Recently, the influence of the matrix on measures of probiotic functionality was reviewed. The data suggest that the matrix impacts several parameters, including number of viable probiotic microorganisms present in the product through shelf life and survival of the probiotic through the gastrointestinal tract. As an example, the number of viable microorganisms in the product as a function storage time can be profoundly different depending on the combination of probiotic strains and matrices used. Some products in which lyophilized probiotics are incorporated into a peanut butter matrix can have storage times up to 50 weeks. Whey proteins present in milk may improve gastrointestinal tract survival. Therefore, one should be aware that it is likely that viability of the probiotic will be impacted by the carrier matrix.

Another way that matrix can be important is through delivery of additional beneficial substances. For example, milk products contain various vitamins, calcium and high quality protein. In the case of a fermented probiotic product, the fermentation process may yield functional substances such as antihypertensive peptides. These effects can be considered as “additional benefits” of the matrix, beyond the impact of matrix on probiotic survival both in the product and in your body.

The body of scientific evidence falls short, however, of proving the importance of matrix on health endpoints. For a given amount of probiotics delivered, we lack comparative studies that prove that the end-benefit of one carrier matrix is better than another. Many supportive studies suggest that this will be the case, but until head-to-head human studies are conducted, we don’t know for sure.

Given the impact the matrix exerts on probiotic survival, and the possible effect on probiotic effectiveness, keep in mind the importance of efficacy studies conducted on the complete probiotic product. We need more research to fully understand the role of matrix on probiotic effectiveness, but the strongest evidence comes from studies conducted on the complete probiotic product.

Figure: Determinants of probiotic product parameters (adapted from Flach et al. 2017). Mark B. van der Waal is gratefully acknowledged for producing the artwork.

For another perspective see Does the delivery format affect probiotic efficacy?, March 28, 2018 by Mary Ellen Sanders.

Posts