Immune biomarkers in non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers who used a probiotic supplement for 30 days: An open-label pilot study.

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is associated with significant psychological and economic burdens, as well as physical comorbidities that can lead to death. Previous research has found that probiotics may reduce inflammatory biomarkers in persons with AUD and comorbid conditions such as cirrhosis of the liver. This relationship has not been explored in heavy drinkers without comorbid conditions. In a proof-of-concept study, individuals who were heavy drinkers without known comorbidities received a 30-day course of a daily probiotic supplement in an open-label pilot trial. Eligible participants (N = 16) met NIAAA guidelines for heavy alcohol use and did not report any preexisting medical problems. Blood samples were taken at four timepoints: prior to the probiotic course, at the midpoint, at the end, and after a washout period of at least one month. Immunoassays were conducted on plasma samples to quantify the following inflammatory biomarkers: IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, LBP, MCP-1, sCD14, sCD163, and TNF-α. Linear mixed models were used to test within-subjects changes in biomarker concentrations over the study period, with alcohol use included as a time-varying covariate. Biomarker concentrations did not change significantly. A higher number of heavy drinking days was statistically associated with higher concentrations of IL-6 (F(1,8) = 6.66, p = 0.0326) and IL-8 (F(1,17) = 6.38, p = 0.0218). Greater days since last drink was associated with a lower concentration of MCP-1 (F(1,17) = 5.77, p = 0.028). In summary, biomarker trajectories were associated with alcohol consumption variables, but not probiotic use, in this open-label pilot study. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate fully the potential benefits of probiotics in heavy drinkers without known comorbidities and under conditions of non-abstinence.

A Review of Hormone and Non-Hormonal Therapy Options for the Treatment of Menopause.

Understanding the role of both menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) along with non-hormonal options for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, sleep disruption, and genitourinary symptoms after menopause is critical to the health of women during middle and later life. Recent updates to the evidence for the treatment of menopausal symptoms pertaining to both hormonal and non-hormonal therapies as well as updated guidance from specialty societies can help guide clinicians in their treatment of women going through natural menopause or with estrogen deficiencies due to primary ovarian insufficiency or induced menopause from surgery or medications. The objective of this narrative review is to provide clinicians with an overview of MHT for the use of menopausal symptoms in women, incorporating updated primary evidence for risk versus benefit profiles, recent specialty society recommendations, and alternative, non-hormonal options. In this review, we summarize literature on the use of MHT for menopause-related symptomatology including options for formulations and dosages of MHT, non-hormonal treatment options, and the risk-benefit profile of MHT including long-term health consequences (eg, cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, venous thromboembolism, and fracture risk). Finally, we highlight areas in which future research is needed to advance care of women after menopause. In summary, both hormonal (MHT) and non-hormonal options exist to treat symptoms of menopause. There is strong evidence for safety and effectiveness of MHT for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms among women who are less than 60 years of age, less than 10 years since menopause, and without significant cardiometabolic comorbidities. For others, treatment with hormonal versus non-hormonal therapies can be considered based on individual risk profiles, as well as other factors such as drug formulation, therapeutic goals, and symptom severity.