4.5 Article

The efficacy and safety of heat-killed Lactobacillus paracasei for treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis induced by house-dust mite

期刊

PEDIATRIC ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 433-438

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2005.00284.x

关键词

quality of life; lactic acid bacteria; allergic rhinitis; Lactobacillus paracasei

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Live Lactobacillus paracasi 33 (LP33) may effectively improve the quality of life for patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. It has been demonstrated that heat-killed lactic acid bacteria (LAB) suppress specific immunoglobulin E synthesis and stimulate interleukin-12 production in animals. The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate the efficacy of heat-killed LP33 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis induced by house-dust-mite in human subjects. A total of 90 patients were enrolled in a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial and assigned to three treatment groups. Patients in groups A and B received two capsules per day of live or heat-killed LAB (5 x 10(9) colony-forming units/capsule), respectively, over a period of 30 days while those in Group C received placebo capsules. A modified questionnaire on pediatric rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life was administered to all subjects or their parents during each clinical visit. The overall quality of life score decreased for groups A and B, as compared with the placebo group, in terms of both frequency (9.47 +/- 2.89, 6.30 +/- 2.19, vs. -3.47 +/- 1.53, respectively; p < 0.0001) and level of bother (5.91 +/- 3.21, 6.04 +/- 2.44, vs. -2.80 +/- 1.64, respectively; p = 0.004) after the 30-day treatment. The efficacy of the heat-killed LP33 was not inferior to the live variant. No obvious side effects were reported for either active treatment group during the study period. Our results suggest that heat-killed LP33 can effectively improve the overall quality of life for patients with allergic rhinitis, and that it may be efficacious as an alternative treatment.

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

4.5
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