4.7 Review

Probiotics, fibre and herbal medicinal products for functional and inflammatory bowel disorders

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 174, 期 11, 页码 1426-1449

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bph.13632

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional bowel disorders (FBD), mainly irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional constipation (FC, also called chronic idiopathic constipation), are very common worldwide. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, although less common, has a strong impact on patients' quality of life, as well as being highly expensive for our healthcare. A definite cure for those disorders is still yet to come. Over the years, several therapeutic approaches complementary or alternative to traditional pharmacological treatments, including probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, fibre and herbal medicinal products, have been investigated for the management of both groups of diseases. However, most available studies are biased by several drawbacks, including small samples and poor methodological quality. Probiotics, in particular Saccharomyces boulardii and Lactobacilli (among which Lactobacillus rhamnosus), synbiotics, psyllium, and some herbal medicinal products, primarily peppermint oil, seem to be effective in ameliorating IBS symptoms. Synbiotics and fibre seem to be beneficial in FC patients. The probiotic combination VSL#3 may be effective in inducing remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis, in whom Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 seems to be as effective as mesalamine in maintaining remission. No definite conclusions can be drawn as to the efficacy of fibre and herbal medicinal products in IBD patients due to the low number of studies and the lack of randomized controlled trials that replicate the results obtained in the individual studies conducted so far. Thus, further, well-designed studies are needed to address the real role of these therapeutic options in the management of both FBD and IBD.

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

4.7
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