Search

Summary Background Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most prevalent microbial diseases and their financial burden on society is substantial. In the context of increasing antibiotic resistance, finding alternative treatments for UTIs is a top priority. We aimed to determine whether intravesical bacteriophage therapy with a commercial bacteriophage cocktail is effective in treating UTI. Methods We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, at the Alexander Tsulukidze National Centre of Urology, Tbilisi, Georgia. Men older than 18 years of age, who were scheduled for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), with complicated UTI or recurrent uncomplicated UTI but no signs of systemic infection, were allocated by block randomisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravesical Pyo bacteriophage (Pyophage; 20 mL) or intravesical placebo solution (20 mL) in a double-blind manner twice daily for 7 days, or systemically applied antibiotics (according to sensitivities) as an open-label standard-of-care comparator. Urine culture was taken via urinary catheter at the end of treatment (ie, day 7) or at withdrawal from the trial. The primary outcome was microbiological treatment response after 7 days of treatment, measured by urine culture; secondary outcomes included clinical and safety parameters during the treatment period. Analyses were done in a modified intention-to-treat population of patients having received at least one dose of the allocated treatment regimen. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03140085 . Findings Between June 2, 2017, and Dec 14, 2018, 474 patients were screened for eligibility and 113 (24%) patients were randomly assigned to treatment (37 to Pyophage, 38 to placebo, and 38 to antibiotic treatment). 97 patients (28 Pyophage, 32 placebo, 37 antibiotics) received at least one dose of their allocated treatment and were included in the primary analysis. Treatment success rates did not differ between groups. Normalisation of urine culture was achieved in five (18%) of 28 patients in the Pyophage group compared with nine (28%) of 32 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1·60 [95% CI 0·45–5·71]; p=0·47) and 13 (35%) of 37 patients in the antibiotic group (2·66 [0·79–8·82]; p=0·11). Adverse events occurred in six (21%) of 28 patients in the Pyophage group compared with 13 (41%) of 32 patients in the placebo group (OR 0·36 [95% CI 0·11–1·17]; p=0·089) and 11 (30%) of 37 patients in the antibiotic group (0·66 [0·21–2·07]; p=0·47). Interpretation Intravesical bacteriophage therapy was non-inferior to standard-of-care antibiotic treatment, but was not superior to placebo bladder irrigation, in terms of efficacy or safety in treating UTIs in patients undergoing TURP. Moreover, the bacteriophage safety profile seems to be favourable. Although bacteriophages are not yet a recognised or approved treatment option for UTIs, this trial provides new insight to optimise the design of further large-scale clinical studies to define the role of bacteriophages in UTI treatment. Funding Swiss Continence Foundation, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. Translations For the Georgian and German translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most prevalent microbial diseases and their financial burden on the society is substantial. Moreover, the continuing increase of antibiotic resistance worldwide is alarming. We aimed to determine whether intravesical bacteriophage therapy is effective to treat UTI. Methods: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial 97 patients presenting with UTI were enrolled to receive intravesical Pyo bacteriophage (n=28), intravesical placebo solution (n=32), or oral antibiotic therapy (n=37). The primary outcome included clinical and microbiological treatment response. Secondary outcomes included safety parameters and quantitative microbiological urine assessments. Findings: At day seven, the treatment success rates were statistically similar between the three groups: Compared to the Pyo bacteriophage (5/28 (18%)) group, the placebo group had 9/32 (28%) (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-6.2; p=0.352) and the antibiotic group had 13/37 (35%) (OR 2.49, 95% CI 0.77-8.1; p=0.129) successes. Also, adverse events were statistically similar between the three groups. They were seen in 6/28 patients (21%) in the Pyo bacteriophage group, in 13/32 (41%) in the placebo group (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.13-1.25; p=0.116) and in 11/37 (30%) in the antibiotic group (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.21-2.03; p=0.452). Interpretation: Beside antibiotics, bacteriophages and bladder irrigation appear to have specific but limited beneficial effects on UTI control. Moreover, the bacteriophage safety profile seems to be favourable. Although bacteriophages are not yet a valuable treatment option for UTIs, this randomized controlled trial provides new insights to optimize the setting for further large-scale clinical studies to define the role of bacteriophages for treating UTIs. Trial Registration: Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03140085. Funding Statement: Swiss Continence Foundation (www.swisscontinencefoundation.ch) The Swiss National Science Foundation (www.snsf.ch) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation in the framework of the program SCOPES (Scientific cooperation between Eastern Europe and Switzerland, grant number 152304). Declaration of Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board and ethical committee at TNCU (TNCU-02/283; Tbilisi, Georgia), complied with International Conference on Harmonization Guideline for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Here, we elaborate on the natural origin and use of enzymes and cultures in sustainable food processing. We also illustrate how enzymatically treated or fermented food can contribute to solving challenges involving nutrition and health, such as aging, malnutrition, obesity, and allergy.

Within the European Union (EU), the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production is not widely applied and accepted. In contrast to the United States of America, the current EU legislation limits the introduction of functional foods derived from GMOs that may bring a clear benefit to the consumer. Genetically modified lactic acid bacteria (GM-LAB) can be considered as a different class of GMOs, and the European Union is preparing regulations for the risk assessment of genetically modified microorganisms. Since these procedures are not yet implemented, the current risk assessment procedure is shared for GMOs derived from micro organisms, plants, or animals. At present, the use of organisms in food production that have uncontrolled genetic alterations made through random mutagenesis, is permitted, while similar applications with organisms that have controlled genetic alterations are not allowed. The current paper reviews the opportunities that genetically modified lactic acid bacteria may offer the food industry and the consumer. An objective risk profile is described for the use of GM-LAB in food production. To enhance the introduction of functional foods with proven health claims it is proposed to adapt the current safety assessment procedures for (GM)-LAB and suggestions are made for the related cost accountability. A qualified presumption of safety as proposed by SANCO (EU SANCO 2003), based on taxonomy and on the history of safe use of LAB applied in food, could in the near future be applied to any kind of LAB or GM-LAB provided that a series of modern profiling methods are used to verify the absence of unintended effects of altered LAB that may cause harm to the health of the consumer.