4.2 Article

Altered gut microbiome composition in children with refractory epilepsy after ketogenic diet

期刊

EPILEPSY RESEARCH
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 163-168

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2018.06.015

关键词

Refractory epilepsy; Ketogenic diet; Gut microbiota; Children

资金

  1. Research Project of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning [201640065]
  2. Key Research Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2016YFC0904400]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics and composition of intestinal microbiota in children with refractory epilepsy after ketogenic diet (KD) therapy and to explore the bacterial biomarkers related to clinical efficacy. Methods: We prospectively analyzed 20 patients (14 males, 6 females) treated with KD. Clinical efficacy, electroencephalogram (EEG) changes, and laboratory tests were evaluated, and fecal specimens were obtained prior to and 6 months after therapy. The composition of gut microbiota was analyzed by 16S rDNA sequencing, and we screened the possible flora associated with efficacy of the KD. Results: After 6 months of treatment, 2 patients were seizure free, 3 had >= 90% seizure reduction, 5 had a reduction of 50-89%, and 10 had < 50% reduction. All 10 responders showed an improvement in EEG. Compared with baseline, fecal microbial profiles showed lower alpha diversity after KD therapy and revealed significantly decreased abundance of Firmicutes and increased levels of Bacteroidetes. We also observed that Clostridiales, Ruminococcaceae, Rikenellaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Alistipes were enriched in the non-responsive group. Conclusions: The results show that the KD can reduce the species richness and diversity of intestinal microbiota. The changes of gut microbiota may be associated with different efficacy after KD, and specific gut microbiota may serve as an efficacy biomarker and a potential therapeutic target in patients with refractory epilepsy.

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

4.2
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