4.6 Review

Efficacy of probiotics on cognition, and biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress in adults with Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment - a meta-analysis of randomized controned trials

期刊

AGING-US
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 4010-4039

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/aging.102810

关键词

probiotics; cognition; Alzheimer's disease; mild cognitive impairment; meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81703268]
  2. National Postdoctoral Foundation of China [2019M663973]
  3. National Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents [BX20180378]
  4. Excellent Youth Foundation of the Third Military Medical University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Probiotics are live microbes that confer health benefits to the host. Preliminary animal evidence supports the potential role of probiotics in ameliorating cognitive health, however, findings from clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects are controversial. Thus, a meta-analysis is needed to clarify the efficacy of probiotics on cognition in AD or MCI patients. EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane library were systematically searched and manually screened for relevant published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Among the 890 citations identified, 5 studies involving 297 subjects met eligibility. There was a significant improvement in cognition (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14, 0.61; P = 0.002; I-2 = 24%), while a significant reduction in malondialdehyde (SMD = -0.60; 95% CI, -0.91, -0.28; P = 0.000; I-2 = 0.0%) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (SMD = -0.57; 95% CI, -0.95, -0.20; P = 0.003; I-2 = 0.0%) post-intervention levels between the probiotics and control group. This meta-analysis indicated that probiotics improved cognitive performance in AD or MCI patients, possibly through decreasing levels of inflammatory and oxidative biomarkers. However, current evidence is insufficient, and more reliable evidence from large-scale, long-period, RCT is needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据