Gut Microbiota and Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Neuroinflammatory Mediated Mechanism of Pathogenesis?

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impairments in social communication and behavior, frequently accompanied by restricted and repetitive patterns of interests or activities. The gut microbiota has been implicated in the etiology of ASD due to its impact on the bidirectional communication pathway known as the gut-brain axis. However, the precise involvement of the gut microbiota in the causation of ASD is unclear. This study critically examines recent evidence to rationalize a probable mechanism in which gut microbiota symbiosis can induce neuroinflammation through intermediator cytokines and metabolites. To develop ASD, loss of the integrity of the intestinal barrier, activation of microglia, and dysregulation of neurotransmitters are caused by neural inflammatory factors. It has emphasized the potential role of neuroinflammatory intermediates linked to gut microbiota alterations in individuals with ASD. Specifically, cytokines like brain-derived neurotrophic factor, calprotectin, eotaxin, and some metabolites and microRNAs have been considered etiological biomarkers. We have also overviewed how probiotic trials may be used as a therapeutic strategy in ASD to reestablish a healthy balance in the gut microbiota. Evidence indicates neuroinflammation induced by dysregulated gut microbiota in ASD, yet there is little clarity based on analysis of the circulating immune profile. It deems the repair of microbiota load would lower inflammatory chaos in the GI tract, correct neuroinflammatory mediators, and modulate the neurotransmitters to attenuate autism. The interaction between the gut and the brain, along with alterations in microbiota and neuroinflammatory biomarkers, serves as a foundational background for understanding the etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of autism spectrum disorder.

Comparing the effect of fluoxetine, escitalopram, and sertraline, on the level of BDNF and depression in preclinical and clinical studies: a systematic review.

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) dysfunction is one of the most important mechanisms underlying depression. It seems that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) improve depression via affecting BDNF level. In this systematic review, for the first time, we aimed to review the effect of three SSRIs including fluoxetine, escitalopram, and sertraline, on both depression and BDNF level in preclinical and clinical studies. PubMed electronic database was searched, and 193 articles were included in this study. After reviewing all manuscripts, only one important difference was found: subjects. We found that SSRIs induce different effects in animals vs. humans. Preclinical studies showed many controversial effects, while human studies showed only two effects: improvement of depression, with or without the improvement of BDNF. However, most studies used chronic SSRIs treatment, while acute SSRIs were not effectively used and evaluated. In conclusion, it seems that SSRIs are reliable antidepressants, and the improvement effect of SSRIs on depression is not dependent to BDNF level (at least in human studies).

Subacute thyroiditis following COVID-19: A systematic review.

Background: Subacute thyroiditis (SAT) is a self-limiting thyroid inflammatory disease occurring specifically after upper respiratory tract infections. Since COVID-19 is a respiratory disease leading to multi-organ involvements, we aimed to systematically review the literature regarding SAT secondary to COVID-19. Methods: We searched Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, ProQuest, and LitCovid databases using the terms "subacute thyroiditis" and "COVID-19" and their synonyms from inception to November 3, 2022. We included the original articles of the patients with SAT secondary to COVID-19. Studies reporting SAT secondary to COVID-19 vaccination or SAT symptoms' manifestation before the COVID-19 infection were not included. Results: Totally, 820 articles were retained. Having removed the duplicates, 250 articles remained, out of which 43 articles (40 case reports and three case series) with a total of 100 patients, were eventually selected. The patients aged 18-85 years (Mean: 42.70, SD: 11.85) and 68 (68%) were women. The time from the onset of COVID-19 to the onset of SAT symptoms varied from zero to 168 days (Mean: 28.31, SD: 36.92). The most common symptoms of SAT were neck pain in 69 patients (69%), fever in 54 (54%), fatigue and weakness in 34 (34%), and persistent palpitations in 31 (31%). The most common ultrasonographic findings were hypoechoic regions in 73 (79%), enlarged thyroid in 46 (50%), and changes in thyroid vascularity in 14 (15%). Thirty-one patients (31%) were hospitalized, and 68 (68%) were treated as outpatients. Corticosteroids were the preferred treatment in both the inpatient and outpatient settings (25 inpatients (81%) and 44 outpatients (65%)). Other preferred treatments were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nine inpatients (29%) and 17 outpatients (25%)) and beta-blockers (four inpatients (13%) and seven outpatients (10%)). After a mean duration of 61.59 days (SD: 67.07), 21 patients (23%) developed hypothyroidism and thus, levothyroxine-based treatment was used in six of these patients and the rest of these patients did not receive levothyroxine. Conclusion: SAT secondary to COVID-19 seems to manifest almost similarly to the conventional SAT. However, except for the case reports and case series, lack of studies has limited the quality of the data at hand.

Comparison of outcomes and costs of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion are used against cytokine release syndrome in COVID-19. This study aims to compare their outcomes, costs, and side-effects. METHODS: Survival, costs and side-effects were compared in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving plasmapheresis (n = 49), hemoperfusion (n = 20), or none (n = 107), followed until death or discharge. RESULTS: Plasmapheresis survival time was higher than hemoperfusion or controls (HR = 0.764, p = 0.397 and HR = 0.483, p = 0.002, respectively), although the latter diminished after controlling for age and disease severity (p = 0.979). There was no significant difference in ICU costs for plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion (p = 0.738) while both costed more than controls (both p < 0.001). Hypocalcemia and thrombocytopenia incidence did not differ between two groups (p = 0.124 and p = 0.389, respectively) while being higher than controls in plasmapheresis (both p < 0.001) and hemoperfusion (p < 0.001 and p = 0.056, respectively). CONCLUSION: Plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion do not differ significantly in patient survival, ICU costs and side-effects with a higher incidence of hypocalcemia and thrombocytopenia compared witcontrols.