Search

Background: Injectable fillers such as poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) and calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) have shown promising results in the treatment of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART)–induced facial lipoatrophy (FLA). However, the effects of these substances on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have not yet been described. Objective: The authors analyze the association between the effects of treatment with semipermanent fillers on MRI and changes in quality of life (QOL). Methods: Eighty-two human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–positive patients with cART-induced FLA (grades 2–4) were enrolled in this prospective study. A mean volume of 58.2 mL (range, 12–105 mL) of PLLA (n = 41 patients) and 9.1 mL (range, 3–23 mL) of CaHA (n = 41) was injected in multiple sessions. The MRI examinations were performed prior to treatment and again 12 months after. The self-reported severity of FLA as well as QOL was measured using questionnaires based on Short Form 36, Medical Outcomes Study HIV Health Survey, and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale formats. Results: Significant increases in total subcutaneous thickness (TST) of the injected regions could be identified on MRI in nearly all patients 1 year posttreatment. Patients reported that mental health and social and role functioning improved; depressive symptoms decreased after treatment. In addition, the increase in TST was positively associated with improvement of QOL. Conclusions: This study confirms that treatment with both PLLA and CaHA not only increases TST but also is associated with improved QOL for HIV-infected patients. Furthermore, the study also demonstrates that MRI can show filler-induced neocollagenesis and quantify FLA treatment effects. Level of Evidence: 3 ![Graphic][1] [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif

The gut microflora in some patients with Crohn's disease can be reduced in numbers of butyrate-producing bacteria and this could result in metabolic stress in the colonocytes. Thus, we hypothesized that the short-chain fatty acid, butyrate, is important in the maintenance and regulation of the barrier function of the colonic epithelium.Confluent monolayers of the human colon-derived T84 or HT-29 epithelial cell lines were exposed to dinitrophenol (DNP (0.1 mM), uncouples oxidative phosphorylation) + Escherichia coli (strain HB101, 10(6) cfu) +/- butyrate (3-50 mM). Transepithelial resistance (TER), and bacterial internalization and translocation were assessed over a 24-hour period. Epithelial ultrastructure was assessed by transmission electron microscopy.Epithelia under metabolic stress display decreased TER and increased numbers of pseudopodia that is consistent with increased internalization and translocation of the E. coli. Butyrate (but not acetate) significantly reduced the bacterial translocation across DNP-treated epithelia but did not ameliorate the drop in TER in the DNP+E. coli exposed monolayers. Inhibition of bacterial transcytosis across metabolically stressed epithelia was associated with reduced I-kappaB phosphorylation and hence NF-kappaB activation.Reduced butyrate-producing bacteria could result in increased epithelial permeability particularly in the context of concomitant exposure to another stimulus that reduces mitochondria function. We speculate that prebiotics, the substrate for butyrate synthesis, is a valuable prophylaxis in the regulation of epithelial permeability and could be of benefit in preventing relapses in IBD.

Background Mortality during severe acute pancreatitis generally occurs early or late. Early mortality occurs as a consequence of fulminant systemic inflammation, whereas late mortality can be attributed to secondary infection of necrotic pancreatic tissue. Aims of this study were to correlate plasma levels of various cytokines and chemokines to outcome, and secondly, to assess the effect of probiotic modulation of intestinal flora on systemic cytokine levels. Materials and methods Pancreatitis was induced in rats by intraductal infusion of bile salt followed by i.v. cerulein hyperstimulation. Rats were administered a mixture of 6 probiotic strains ( Ecologic ® 641) or placebo for five days prior to and seven days after induction of pancreatitis. Plasma cytokine levels were determined before, and 6 hours, 24 hours and 7 days after induction of pancreatitis. Total bacterial counts were performed by cultivation as well as by cultivation-independent rt-PCR in pancreatic necrosis at day 7.

The safety of probiotics is tied to their intended use, which includes consideration of potential vulnerability of the consumer or patient, dose and duration of consumption, and both the manner and frequency of administration. Unique to probiotics is that they are alive when administered, and unlike other food or drug ingredients, possess the potential for infectivity or in situ toxin production. Since numerous types of microbes are used as probiotics, safety is also intricately tied to the nature of the specific microbe being used. The presence of transferable antibiotic resistance genes, which comprises a theoretical risk of transfer to a less innocuous member of the gut microbial community, must also be considered. Genetic stability of the probiotic over time, deleterious metabolic activities, and the potential for pathogenicity or toxicogenicity must be assessed depending on the characteristics of the genus and species of the microbe being used. Immunological effects must be considered, especially in certain vulnerable populations, including infants with undeveloped immune function. A few reports about negative probiotic effects have surfaced, the significance of which would be better understood with more complete understanding of the mechanisms of probiotic interaction with the host and colonizing microbes. Use of readily available and low cost genomic sequencing technologies to assure the absence of genes of concern is advisable for candidate probiotic strains. The field of probiotic safety is characterized by the scarcity of studies specifically designed to assess safety contrasted with the long history of safe use of many of these microbes in foods.

Factors determining severity of acute pancreatitis (AP) are poorly understood. Oxidative stress causes acinar cell injury and contributes to the severity, whereas prophylactic probiotics ameliorate experimental pancreatitis. Our objective was to study how probiotics affect oxidative stress, inflammation, and acinar cell injury during the early phase of AP. Fifty-three male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly allocated into groups: 1) control, 2) sham procedure, 3) AP with no treatment, 4) AP with probiotics, and 5) AP with placebo. AP was induced under general anesthesia by intraductal glycodeoxycholate infusion (15 mM) and intravenous cerulein (5 μg·kg−1·h−1, for 6 h). Daily probiotics or placebo were administered intragastrically, starting 5 days prior to AP. After cerulein infusion, pancreas samples were collected for analysis including lipid peroxidation, glutathione, glutamate-cysteine-ligase activity, histological grading of pancreatic injury, and NF-κB activation. The severity of pancreatic injury correlated to oxidative damage ( r = 0.9) and was ameliorated by probiotics (1.5 vs. placebo 5.5; P = 0.014). AP-induced NF-κB activation was reduced by probiotics (0.20 vs. placebo 0.53 OD450nm/mg nuclear protein; P < 0.001). Probiotics attenuated AP-induced lipid peroxidation (0.25 vs. placebo 0.51 pmol malondialdehyde/mg protein; P < 0.001). Not only was AP-induced glutathione depletion prevented (8.81 vs. placebo 4.1 μmol/mg protein, P < 0.001), probiotic pretreatment even increased glutathione compared with sham rats (8.81 vs. sham 6.18 μmol/mg protein, P < 0.001). Biosynthesis of glutathione (glutamate-cysteine-ligase activity) was enhanced in probiotic-pretreated animals. Probiotics enhanced the biosynthesis of glutathione, which may have reduced activation of inflammation and acinar cell injury and ameliorated experimental AP, via a reduction in oxidative stress.

BACKGROUND: During acute pancreatitis (AP), oxidative stress contributes to intestinal barrier failure. We studied actions of multispecies probiotics on barrier dysfunction and oxidative stress in experimental AP. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Fifty-three male Spraque-Dawley rats were randomly allocated into five groups: 1) controls, non-operated, 2) sham-operated, 3) AP, 4) AP and probiotics and 5) AP and placebo. AP was induced by intraductal glycodeoxycholate infusion and intravenous cerulein (6 h). Daily probiotics or placebo were administered intragastrically, starting five days prior to AP. After cerulein infusion, ileal mucosa was collected for measurements of E. coli K12 and (51)Cr-EDTA passage in Ussing chambers. Tight junction proteins were investigated by confocal immunofluorescence imaging. Ileal mucosal apoptosis, lipid peroxidation, and glutathione levels were determined and glutamate-cysteine-ligase activity and expression were quantified. AP-induced barrier dysfunction was characterized by epithelial cell apoptosis and alterations of tight junction proteins (i.e. disruption of occludin and claudin-1 and up-regulation of claudin-2) and correlated with lipid peroxidation (r>0.8). Probiotic pre-treatment diminished the AP-induced increase in E. coli passage (probiotics 57.4+/-33.5 vs. placebo 223.7+/-93.7 a.u.; P

Stress has a major impact on gut physiology and may affect the clinical course of gastro-intestinal diseases. In this review, we focus on the interaction between commensal gut microbiota and intestinal mucosa during stress and discuss the possibilities to counteract the deleterious effects of stress with probiotics. Normally, commensal microbes and their hosts benefit from a symbiotic relationship. Stress does, however, reduce the number of Lactobacilli, while on the contrary, an increased growth, epithelial adherence and mucosal uptake of gram-negative pathogens, e.g. E. coli and Pseudomonas, are seen. Moreover, intestinal bacteria have the ability to sense a stressed host and up-regulate their virulence factors when opportunity knocks. Probiotics are “live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host”, and mainly represented by Lactic Acid Bacteria. Probiotics can counteract stress-induced changes in intestinal barrier function, visceral sensitivity and gut motility. These effects are strain specific and mediated by direct bacterial-host cell interaction and/or via soluble factors. Mechanisms of action include competition with pathogens for essential nutrients, induction of epithelial heat-shock proteins, restoring of tight junction protein structure, up-regulation of mucin genes, secretion of defensins, and regulation of the NFκB signalling pathway. In addition, the reduction of intestinal pain perception was shown to be mediated via cannabinoid receptors. Based on the studies reviewed here there is clearly a rationale for probiotic treatment in patients with stressrelated intestinal disorders. We are however far from being able to choose the precise combination of strains or bacterial components for each clinical setting.

Infection of pancreatic necrosis by gut bacteria is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Use of prophylactic antibiotics remains controversial. The aim of this experiment was assess if modification of intestinal flora with specifically designed multispecies probiotics reduces bacterial translocation or improves outcome in a rat model of acute pancreatitis. METHODS: Male Sprague-Dawley rats were allocated into 3 groups: (1) controls (sham-operated, no treatment), (2) pancreatitis and placebo, and (3) pancreatitis and probiotics. Acute pancreatitis was induced by intraductal glycodeoxycholate and intravenous cerulein infusion. Daily probiotics or placebo was administered intragastrically from 5 days prior until 7 days after induction of pancreatitis. Tissue and fluid samples were collected for microbiologic and quantitative real-time PCR analysis of bacterial translocation. RESULTS: Probiotics reduced duodenal bacterial overgrowth of potential pathogens (Log(10) colony-forming units [CFU]/g 5.0 +/- 0.7 [placebo] vs 3.5 +/- 0.3 CFU/g [probiotics], P