Birte J Wolff1, Travis K Price2, Cara J Joyce3, Alan J Wolfe2, Elizabeth R Mueller4. 1. Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Urology, Loyola University Medical Center and Stritch School of Medicine Loyola University Chicago, 2160 S First Ave, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. birtewolff@gmail.com. 2. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA. 3. Biostatistics Core, Department of Public Health Sciences, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Urology, Loyola University Medical Center and Stritch School of Medicine Loyola University Chicago, 2160 S First Ave, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Probiotics may reduce risk of urinary tract infection by preventing colonization of uropathogens. We aimed to determine the change in the ratio between uropathogens:Lactobacillus (U/L) within the lower urinary tract in response to oral probiotic. METHODS: This was a double-blinded randomized controlled trial of healthy pre-menopausal female volunteers. Participants provided daily voided urine for 3 months including three phases of the trial: 1-baseline, 2-intervention, 3-wash-out. Participants were randomized to an oral probiotic (Lactobacillus rhamnosusGR-1 and Lactobacillusreuteri RC-14) versus placebo. The primary outcome was the U/L ratio of daily voided urine, as determined by an enhanced urine culture method. Analysis included t test of the ratios and separate generalized linear mixed effects models (GLMM) for microbiota diversity. RESULTS:481 samples of seven female participants with mean age 29.1 years (± 5.3 years) were included in the analysis (probiotic n = 4; placebo n = 3). No adverse events were reported. The placebo and probiotic groups had similar mean U/L ratios with no difference between placebo and probiotic groups in Phases 1-3 (p = 0.90, p = 0.58 and p = 0.72, respectively). The probiotic species were never identified in the voided urine. There were no changes between groups in terms of microbiota diversity. CONCLUSION: For young healthy women, the use of oral probiotic did not affect the U/L ratio.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Probiotics may reduce risk of urinary tract infection by preventing colonization of uropathogens. We aimed to determine the change in the ratio between uropathogens:Lactobacillus (U/L) within the lower urinary tract in response to oral probiotic. METHODS: This was a double-blinded randomized controlled trial of healthy pre-menopausal female volunteers. Participants provided daily voided urine for 3 months including three phases of the trial: 1-baseline, 2-intervention, 3-wash-out. Participants were randomized to an oral probiotic (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and Lactobacillus reuteri RC-14) versus placebo. The primary outcome was the U/L ratio of daily voided urine, as determined by an enhanced urine culture method. Analysis included t test of the ratios and separate generalized linear mixed effects models (GLMM) for microbiota diversity. RESULTS: 481 samples of seven female participants with mean age 29.1 years (± 5.3 years) were included in the analysis (probiotic n = 4; placebo n = 3). No adverse events were reported. The placebo and probiotic groups had similar mean U/L ratios with no difference between placebo and probiotic groups in Phases 1-3 (p = 0.90, p = 0.58 and p = 0.72, respectively). The probiotic species were never identified in the voided urine. There were no changes between groups in terms of microbiota diversity. CONCLUSION: For young healthy women, the use of oral probiotic did not affect the U/L ratio.
Authors: Alan J Wolfe; Evelyn Toh; Noriko Shibata; Ruichen Rong; Kimberly Kenton; MaryPat Fitzgerald; Elizabeth R Mueller; Paul Schreckenberger; Qunfeng Dong; David E Nelson; Linda Brubaker Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Mar Olga Pérez-Moreno; Ester Picó-Plana; Jesús Grande-Armas; Mª José Centelles-Serrano; Mercé Arasa-Subero; Núria Colomé- Ochoa; Members Of The Study Group Gessagte Led By Mo Pérez-Moreno Journal: J Med Microbiol Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.472
Authors: Gregor Reid; Duane Charbonneau; Julie Erb; Barbara Kochanowski; Dee Beuerman; Russ Poehner; Andrew W Bruce Journal: FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol Date: 2003-03-20
Authors: Travis K Price; Tanaka Dune; Evann E Hilt; Krystal J Thomas-White; Stephanie Kliethermes; Cynthia Brincat; Linda Brubaker; Alan J Wolfe; Elizabeth R Mueller; Paul C Schreckenberger Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Betsy Foxman; Anna E W Cronenwett; Cathie Spino; Mitchell B Berger; Daniel M Morgan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: J Pawłowska; E Klewicka; P Czubkowski; I Motyl; I Jankowska; Z Libudzisz; M Teisseyre; D Gliwicz; B Cukrowska Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Derrick E Fouts; Rembert Pieper; Sebastian Szpakowski; Hans Pohl; Susan Knoblach; Moo-Jin Suh; Shih-Ting Huang; Inger Ljungberg; Bruce M Sprague; Sarah K Lucas; Manolito Torralba; Karen E Nelson; Suzanne L Groah Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Travis K Price; Birte Wolff; Thomas Halverson; Roberto Limeira; Linda Brubaker; Qunfeng Dong; Elizabeth R Mueller; Alan J Wolfe Journal: mBio Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 7.867
Authors: T Schiereck; S Yeldan; J Kranz; L Schneidewind; F Wagenlehner; I Wieters; M J G T Vehreschild; T Otto; D Barski Journal: Urologe A Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 0.639