4.6 Article

Synbiotics prevent asthma-like symptoms in infants with atopic dermatitis

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 66, 期 2, 页码 170-177

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02416.x

关键词

asthma; prebiotics; prevention; probiotics; synbiotics

资金

  1. Danone Research - Centre for Specialised Nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background: Infants with atopic dermatitis (AD) have a high risk of developing asthma. We investigated the effect of early intervention with synbiotics, a combination of probiotics and prebiotics, on the prevalence of asthma-like symptoms in infants with AD. Methods: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre trial, ninety infants with AD, age < 7 months, were randomized to receive an extensively hydrolyzed formula with Bifidobacterium breve M-16V and a galacto/fructooligosaccharide mixture (Immunofortis (R)), or the same formula without synbiotics during 12 weeks. After 1 year, the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and asthma medication use was evaluated, using a validated questionnaire. Also, total serum IgE and specific IgE against aeroallergens were determined. Findings: Seventy-five children (70.7% male, mean age 17.3 months) completed the 1-year follow-up evaluation. The prevalence of 'frequent wheezing' and 'wheezing and/or noisy breathing apart from colds' was significantly lower in the synbiotic than in the placebo group (13.9%vs 34.2%, absolute risk reduction (ARR) -20.3%, 95% CI -39.2% to -1.5%, and 2.8%vs 30.8%, ARR -28.0%, 95% CI -43.3% to -12.5%, respectively). Significantly less children in the synbiotic than in the placebo group had started to use asthma medication after baseline (5.6%vs 25.6%, ARR -20.1%, 95% CI -35.7% to -4.5%). Total IgE levels did not differ between the two groups. No children in the synbiotic and five children (15.2%) in the placebo group developed elevated IgE levels against cat (ARR -15.2%, 95% CI -27.4% to -2.9%). Conclusion: These results suggest that this synbiotic mixture prevents asthma-like symptoms in infants with AD.

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