4.6 Article

Oral administration of the probiotic Lactobacillus fermentum VRI-003 and mucosal immunity in endurance athletes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 44, 期 4, 页码 222-226

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2007.044628

关键词

-

资金

  1. Probiomics Ltd
  2. AusIndustry RD
  3. VRI Biomedical Ltd

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate the ability of a probiotic Lactobacillus fermentum VRI-003 (PCC) to enhance the mucosal immune system of elite athletes. Design and setting A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial was conducted over a 4-month period of winter training. Participants 20 healthy elite male distance runners. Interventions PCC was given at a daily dose of 1.2x10(10) as a freeze-dried powder in gelatin capsules. Placebo capsules contained an inert excipient. Main outcome measures Treadmill performance (monthly), mucosal and systemic immunity (monthly), training (daily) and illness (daily) were assessed. Serum cytokine levels, salivary IgA levels and incidence, duration and severity of respiratory tract infections were measured. Results Subjects reported less than half the number of days of respiratory symptoms during PCC treatment (30 days) compared with placebo (72 days, p<0.001). Illness severity was also lower for episodes occurring during the PCC treatment (p = 0.06). There were no significant differences in the mean change in salivary IgA and IgA1 levels, or in interleukin (IL) 4 and IL12 levels, between treatments. However, PCC treatment elicited a twofold (p = 0.07) greater change in whole-blood culture interferon gamma (IFN gamma) compared with placebo. No substantial changes in running performance measures were seen over the study period. Conclusions Prophylactic administration of PCC was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of days and severity of respiratory illness in a cohort of highly trained distance runners. Maintenance of IFN gamma levels may be one mechanism underpinning the positive clinical outcomes.

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