Probiotics and synbiotics for glycemic control in diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The escalating prevalence of diabetes mellitus may benefit from add-on therapeutic approaches. Given the recognized need for an updated synthesis of the literature, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize and critically assess the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigate the efficacy of probiotics and synbiotics on glycemic control in patients with Type 1 (T1DM) and Type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Comprehensive searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, focusing on adults with T1DM or T2DM. All comparators were deemed eligible. Primary outcomes included changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and insulin levels. Only RCTs were included, and the Cochrane RoB2 tool assessed the risk of bias. Random-effect models facilitated data analysis, supplemented by sensitivity, subgroup analyses, and meta-regressions. RESULTS: A total of 537 records were screened, resulting in 41 RCTs for analysis, which comprises 2991 (54% females) patients with diabetes. The meta-analysis revealed statistically significant improvements in HbA1c (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.282, 95% CI: [-0.37, -0.19], p < 0.001), FPG (SMD = -0.175, 95% CI: [-0.26, -0.09], p < 0.001), and insulin levels (SMD = -0.273, 95% CI: [-0.35, -0.20], p < 0.001). A medium degree of heterogeneity between studies was found in HbA1c (I2 = 62.5%), FPG (I2 = 71.5%), and insulin levels (I2 = 66.4%) analyses. Subgroup analyses indicated that the efficacy varied based on the type of strains used and the country. Multispecies strains were particularly effective in improving HbA1c levels. CONCLUSION: The study findings suggest that probiotics and synbiotics may be effective as complementary therapies for managing diabetes. Additionally, the study underscores the need for further tailored research that considers variables such as strain types and geographical factors to deepen the understanding of the role of these interventions in diabetes care. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42023396348).

Microbiome-Modifiers for Cancer-Related Fatigue Management: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This study systematically investigates the evidence regarding the use of probiotics in managing cancer-related fatigue (CRF). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: The systematic search encompassed six databases: PubMed, CINHAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE, covering the period from inception to December 2023. The assessment of risk of bias employed the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2). A narrative synthesis and an exploratory meta-analysis were conducted to summarize the evidence. RESULTS: Among 460 records, three studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. These studies involved a total of 284 participants with colorectal and breast cancer. One study demonstrated a marginal improvement in CRF postchemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients using probiotics. Another study, also using probiotics, reported a significant reduction in CRF among colorectal cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Additionally, a study employing synbiotics showed a substantial decrease in CRF severity in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The study presents initial but varied evidence suggesting the potential of probiotics and synbiotics as adjunctive therapies in managing CRF alongside anticancer treatments. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: In nursing practice, large-scale clinical trials are urgently needed to evaluate the effectiveness of probiotics in treating cancer-related fatigue during cancer therapy. Insights from this review could guide nurses in selecting appropriate probiotic strains and integrating microbiome modifiers into comprehensive care plans, potentially enhancing the quality of life for cancer patients.

Non-pharmacologic interventions for improving cancer-related fatigue (CRF): A systematic review of systematic reviews and pooled meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Literature encloses numerous systematic reviews (SRs) on nonpharmacologic interventions for improving cancer-related fatigue (CRF). The effect of these interventions remains controversial, and the available SRs have not been synthesized yet. We conducted a systematic synthesis of SRs and meta-analysis to determine the effect of nonpharmacologic interventions on CRF in adults. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We systematically searched 4 databases. The effect sizes (standard mean difference) were quantitatively pooled using a random-effects model. Chi-squared (Q) and I-square statistics (I²) tested the heterogeneity. RESULTS: We selected 28 SRs, including 35 eligible meta-analyses. The pooled effect size (standard mean difference, 95% CI) was -0.67 (-1.16, -0.18). The subgroup analysis by types of interventions showed a significant effect in all the investigated approaches (complementary integrative medicine, physical exercise, self-management/e-health interventions). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that nonpharmacologic interventions are associated with CRF reduction. Future research should focus on testing these interventions on specific population clusters and trajectories. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020194258.

Biomarkers of angiogenesis for the development of antiangiogenic therapies in oncology: tools or decorations?

Since 2004, four antiangiogenic drugs have been approved for clinical use in patients with advanced solid cancers, on the basis of their capacity to improve survival in phase III clinical studies. These achievements validated the concept introduced by Judah Folkman that the inhibition of tumor angiogenesis could control tumor growth. It has been suggested that biomarkers of angiogenesis would greatly facilitate the clinical development of antiangiogenic therapies. For these four drugs, the pharmacodynamic effects observed in early clinical studies were important to corroborate activities, but were not essential for the continuation of clinical development and approval. Furthermore, no validated biomarkers of angiogenesis or antiangiogenesis are available for routine clinical use. Thus, the quest for biomarkers of angiogenesis and their successful use in the development of antiangiogenic therapies are challenges in clinical oncology and translational cancer research. We review critical points resulting from the successful clinical trials, review current biomarkers, and discuss their potential impact on improving the clinical use of available antiangiogenic drugs and the development of new ones.