Table 2.
Some clinical trial data of probiotics for treating UC.
| Sr. no. | Probiotic Used | Outcome | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A probiotic product that contained L. casei Zhang, L. plantarum P-8 and B. animalis subsp. lactis | The overall remission rate was 91.67% for the probiotic group vs. 69.23% for the placebo group (P = 0.034) | Chen et al., 2020a. |
| 2 | Symprove (contains Lactobacillus rhamnosus NCIMB 30174, Lactobacillus plantarum NCIMB 30173, Lactobacillus acidophilus NCIMB 30175 and Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 30176 | The calprotectin levels were significantly decreased following 4 weeks in the probiotic group (p = 0.011 and 0.001, t-test and Wilcoxon’s, respectively) |
Bjarnason et al., 2019. |
| 3 | Kefir (Lactobacillus Bacteria) | No statistically significant difference was found between weeks 1 and 2 in patients with UC in terms of abdominal pain, bloating, frequency of stools, defecation consistency, and feeling good. | Yilmaz et al., 2019. |
| 4 | A tablet contains Streptococcus faecalis T-110, Clostridium butyricum TO-A and Bacillus mesentericus TO-A | At 12 months, the remission rate was 69.5% in the treatment group and 56.6% in the placebo group (p = 0.248). The relapse rates in the treatment and placebo groups were 0.0% vs. 17.4% at months (p = 0.036). | Yoshimatsu et al., 2015. |
| 5 | Mil–Mil (a fermented milk product containing B. breve strain Yakult and Lactobacillus acidophilus | Relapse-free survival was not significantly different between the treatment and placebo groups (P = 0.643) | Matsuoka et al., 2018. |
| 6 | Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 | Efficacy in maintaining remission and preventing relapse comparable to Mesalazine | Kruis et al., 2004. |
| 7 | Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 | Efficacy in maintaining remission after exacerbation of UC comparable to mesalazine | Rembacken et al., 1999. |
| 8 | Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 | Efficacy and safety in maintaining remission comparable to mesalazine | Kruis et al., 2004. |
| 9 | Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 | Efficacy in maintaining remission comparable to mesalazine | Henker et al., 2008. |
| 10 | Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 | Possibility of dose-dependent efficacy in inducing remission of the rectal probiotic compared to placebo | Matthes et al., 2010. |
| 11 | Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 | No benefit in the use of probiotics as an additional therapy to conventional treatment | Petersen et al., 2014. |
| 12 | Lactobacillus GG | Higher efficacy of probiotics as add-on therapy in prolonging the relapse-free time compared to mesalazine monotherapy | Zocco et al., 2006. |
| 13 | Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Lactobacillus acidophilus YIT 0168 (Bifidobacteria-Fermented Milk- BFM) | Higher efficacy of probiotic mixture as add-on therapy in maintaining remission and preventing relapse compared to conventional therapy alone | Ishikawa et al., 2003. |
| 14 | Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Lactobacillus acidophilus YIT 0168 (Bifidobacteria-Fermented Milk- BFM) | Higher efficacy of probiotics as add-on therapy in maintaining remission compared to conventional therapy alone | Kato et al., 2004. |
| 16 | Lactobacillus reuteri ATCC 55730 | Higher efficacy of probiotic enema as add-on therapy additional to oral mesalazine in improving mucosal inflammation compared to conventional therapy | Oliva et al., 2011. |
| 17 | Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. Bulgaricus, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium breve and Bifidobacterium infantis, Streptococcus salivarius subsp. Thermophils (VSL#3) | The higher efficacy of probiotic mixture as add-on therapy to conventional treatment in patients with the relapsing disease compared to placebo | Tursi et al., 2010. |
| 18 | Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. Bulgaricus, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium breve and Bifidobacterium infantis, Streptococcus salivarius subsp. Thermophils (VSL#3) | Higher efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission compared to placebo | Sood et al., 2009. |
| 19 | Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. Bulgaricus, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium breve and Bifidobacterium infantis, Streptococcus salivarius subsp. Thermophils (VSL#3) | Higher efficacy in maintaining remission compared to placebo | Miele et al., 2009. |
| 20 | Lactobacillus plantarum, Bifidobacterium longum, and Bifidobacterium bifidum | Suppressed colonic inflammation, and fatigue by the suppression of the IL-1β or IL-6 to IL-10 expression ratio and gut bacterial LPS production | Yoo et al., 2022. |
| 21 | Lactobacillus plantarum | Restored gut microbiota balance and modulated the resident gut microbiota and immune response | Khan et al., 2022. |
| 22 | Ligilactobacillus salivarius Li01 and RSV | An improved synergistic anti-inflammatory effect from the RSV and Li01 combination treatment | Fei et al., 2022. |
| 23 | Goji juice fermented by Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus reuteri and Streptococcus thermophilus | Probiotics-fermentation enhanced the anti-ulcerative colitis function of goji berry juice and modulated gut microbiota | Liu et al., 2021. |
| 24 | Lactobacillus plantarum CBT LP3 (KCTC 10782BP) | Effective anti-inflammatory effects, with increased induction of Treg and restoration of goblet cells, suppression of proinflammatory cytokines | Kim et al., 2020. |
| 25 | Bifidobacterium breve, CCFM683 | Improved intestinal epithelial barriers, restored gut microbiota | Chen et al., 2020b. |
| 26 | Bifidobacterium infantis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecalis with (quadruple probiotics, Pqua) or without (triple probiotics, P-tri) aerobic Bacillus cereus | Effective (Aerobe-contained Piqua was a powerful adjuvant therapy for chronic colitis, via restoring the intestinal microflora and recovering the multi-barriers in the inflamed gut) | Chen et al., 2020c. |
| 27 | Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactic JCM5805 | Effective (high-dose administration deteriorates intestinal inflammation) | Komaki et al., 2020. |
| 28 | Lactobacillus bulgaricus | Regulates the inflammatory response and prevents Colitis-associated cancer | Silveira et al., 2020. |
| 29 | Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species | Significantly induced remission in UC patients | Agraib et al., 2022. |
| 30 | Bacillus coagulans Unique IS-2 | Showed beneficial effects when administered along with standard medical treatment | Bamola et al., 2022. |
| 31. | Bifid Triple Viable Capsules | IL-1, TNF-α, and IL-10 had higher decreases in a test group | Cui et al., 2004. |
| 32 | Lactobacillus casei DG | Both orally and rectally given probiotics have shown SS improvement in clinical and histological scores | D’Inca et al., 2011. |
| 33 | Bifidobacterium longum | Sigmoidoscopy scores (SS) and blood-serological markers TNF- α and IL-1 were reduced. Both clinical activity index (CAI) and bowel habit index (BHI) were reduced in a test group | Furrie et al., 2005. |
| 34 | Bifidobacterium breve | The endoscopic score of the treatment group was significantly lower. Myeloperoxidase analysis (MPO) amounts in the lavage solution (LS) significantly decreased | Ishikawa et al., 2011. |
| 35 | Bifid Triple Viable Capsules | Higher decrease in UCDAI scores and symptoms in the test group. TNF-α and IL-8 were decreased in a test group | Huang et al., 2018. |
| 36 | Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus plantarum, Streptococcus thermophilus, Bifidobacterium lactis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium longum | SS differences in decrease of endoscopic and clinical index score. The test group achieved a higher decrease | Kamarli et al., 2019. |
| 37 | Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Lactobacillus acidophilus YIT 0168 | CAI score, endoscopic score, and histological score were significantly lower in the treatment group | Kato et al., 2004. |
| 38 | E.coli Nissle 1917 (Serotype O6: K5: H1) | No significant differences both in CAI scores and relapse rates. Relapse-free time differences were also NS | Kruis et al., 1997. |
| 39 | E.coli Nissle 1917 (Serotype O6: K5: H1) | NS differences in decrease of clinical symptoms and blood-serological markers between groups. Both groups had decreased inflammation markers and symptoms | Arribas et al., 2009. |
| 40 | Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Lactobacillus acidophilus YIT 0168 | NS differences in both relapse-free survival and clinical deterioration | Matsuoka et al., 2018. |
| 41 | E.coli Nissle 1917 (Serotype O6: K5: H1) | The dose depended on efficacy in both remission time and endoscopic findings | Matthes et al., 2010. |
| 42 | L. paracasei, L. plantarum, L. acidophilus, L. delbrueckii subsp bulgaricus, B. longum, B. breve, B. infantis, Streptococcus thermophilus | More patients achieved remission in the test group | Ng et al., 2010. |
| 43 | Lactobacillus salivarius, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidus strain BGN4 | The better improvement compared to the control | Palumbo et al., 2016. |
| 44 | Bifidobacterium longum BB536 | Significant decrease in UCDAI scores and endoscopic index in a test group | Tamaki et al., 2015. |
| 45 | L. acidophilus strain LA-5 and B. animalis subsp. lactis strain BB-12 | More patients in the test group achieved remission. Median relapse time was longer in a test group | Wildt et al., 2011. |
| 46 | Bifid Triple Viable Capsules | The observation group had significantly lower scores in CDAI and UCAI as well as recurrence rate | Fan et al., 2019. |
| 47 | Lactobacillus spp. | Reduced fecal calprotectin (FCAL) in UC patients. No differences in IBD-QOL scores and blood-serological markers | Yilmaz et al., 2019. |
| 48 | Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus with sulfasalazine and prednisone vs. sulfasalazine | Level decrease of CRP, TNF-α and IL-10 in both groups, significantly lower in the study group (p < 0.05); significantly higher treatment effect in the study group (p < 0.05); higher infection rate in the control group (p < 0.05) | Su et al., 2018. |
| 49 | VSL#3 | 75% of patients remained in remission during the study period, with no side effects | Venturi et al., 1999. |
| 50 | Eschericia coli Nissle 1917 (1×1011cfu/day) | Prebiotics induce remission as effectively as mesalazine (standard treatment) | Rembacken et al., 1999. |
| 51 | VSL#3 | VSL#3 resulted in combined induction of remission/response rate of 70%, with no adverse effects | Bibiloni et al., 2005. |
| 52 | Saccharomyces boulardii | 71% of patients remained in remission | Guslandi et al., 2003. |
| 53 | Yakult (1×1010 cfu/day) | 73% of patients treated with probiotics remained in remission, while only 10% of placebo | Ishikawa et al., 2003. |