4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

A randomized, controlled trial of lactic acid bacteria for idiopathic hyperoxaluria

出版社

AMERICAN SOCIETY NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00600207

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R44 DK59086] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Urinary oxalate excretion is an important contributor to calcium oxalate stone formation. Methods of reducing oxalate excretion are not wholly satisfactory, and no controlled trials using them have been performed to prevent stone recurrence. Some lactic acid bacteria can degrade oxalate in vitro. This study sought to reduce urinary oxalate excretion in calcium stone formers with idiopathic hyperoxaluria. Design, setting, participants, and measurements: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed of Oxadrop, a mix of four lactic acid bacterium species. This preparation previously reduced oxalate excretion in stone formers with idiopathic and enteric hyperoxaluria. Patients were selected from two stone prevention clinics. Twenty people with calcium stones and idiopathic hyperoxaluria (> 40 mg/d) were enrolled and randomly assigned 1:1 in placebo and active preparation arms. Both groups took 3.6 g of granulate each day: Either placebo or the experimental preparation. Participants performed two consecutive 24-h urine collections at baseline, at 28 d of therapy, and at 56 d, after being off the preparation for 4 wk. Diet was replicated at each point. Results: There was no effect of the study preparation: Mean 24-h urinary oxalate excretion in placebo-treated patients was 73.9 mg at baseline and 72.7 mg after treatment, whereas the Oxadrop-treated patients had 59.1 mg at baseline and 55.4 mg after treatment. The preparation was well tolerated; three participants on active treatment experienced mild constipation. Conclusions: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, Oxadrop did not reduce urinary oxalate excretion in participants with idiopathic hyperoxaluria.

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