Importance of Molecular Methods to Determine Whether a Probiotic is the Source of Lactobacillus Bacteremia.

There has been an increasing interest in the use of probiotic products for the prevention of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Bio-K+(®) is a commercial probiotic product comprising three strains of lactobacilli--Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285(®), Lact. casei LBC80R(®) and Lact. rhamnosus CLR2(®)--that have been applied to prevent CDI. Generally considered as safe, lactobacilli have potential to cause bacteremia, endocarditis and other infections. The source of Lactobacillus bacteremia can be normal human flora or lactobacilli-containing probiotic. The aim of this study was to assess whether probiotic lactobacilli caused bacteremia and to show the value of molecular identification and typing techniques to determine probiotic and patient strain relatedness. We report an episode of Lactobacillus bacteremia in a 69-year-old man admitted to a hospital with severe congestive heart failure. During his hospitalization, he required long-term antibiotic therapy. Additionally, the patient received Bio-K+(®) probiotic as part of a quality improvement project to prevent CDI. Subsequently, Lactobacillus bacteremia occurred. Two independent blinded laboratory evaluations, using pulse field gel electrophoresis, 16S rRNA gene sequencing and DNA fingerprint analysis (rep-PCR), were performed to determine whether the recovered Lact. acidophilus originated from the probiotic product. Ultimately, the patient strain was identified as Lact. casei and both laboratories found no genetic relation between the patient's strain and any of the probiotic lactobacilli. This clinical case of lactobacillus bacteremia in the setting of probiotic exposure demonstrates the value of using discriminatory molecular methods to clearly determine whether there were a link between the patient's isolate and the probiotic strains.

Efficacy and safety of mesalamine 1 g HS versus 500 mg BID suppositories in mild to moderate ulcerative proctitis: a multicenter randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative proctitis (UP) usually presents as fresh rectal bleeding. Successful treatment using topical mesalamine 5-aminosalicyclic acid (5-ASA) 500 mg BID suppository led to developing a once-a-day formulation that could contribute to better acceptability and ease of use by patients. The objective of this randomized trial, conducted in 18 centers, was to compare efficacy of 2 modes of treatment with 5-ASA suppositories. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with mild or moderate UP limited to 15 cm of the anal margin, evidenced by a disease activity index (DAI) between 4 and 11, were randomized to 5-ASA 500 mg suppository (Canasa; Axcan Pharma) BID or 1 g at bedtime (HS) for 6 weeks. The study used a noninferiority hypothesis based on the mean difference in DAI values after 6 weeks of treatment on an intent-to-treat basis using analysis of covariance. DAI was derived from a composite of the measures of stool frequency, rectal bleeding, mucosal visualization at endoscopy, and general well being. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups at baseline for demographic and clinical parameters. Mean DAIs fell from 6.6 +/- 1.5 (SD) to 1.6 +/- 2.3 in the 500 mg BID group (n = 48) and from 6.1 +/- 1.5 to 1.3 +/- 2.2 in the 1 g HS group (n = 39). There was no significant difference (P = 0.74) in mean DAI at week 6 between the 2 groups. Both groups showed a significant reduction (P < 0.0001) in DAI over the course of the 6 weeks. Both formulations showed effectiveness in reducing each individual component of the DAI. There was no significant difference between treatments in adverse events, and both groups had an overall drug compliance of greater than 95%. CONCLUSION: This study showed that 1 g HS and 500 mg BID mesalamine suppository treatments of UP patients were equivalent in all facets of efficacy, safety, and compliance in a 6-week trial.