The majority of type 2 diabetic patients in Finnish primary care are at very high risk of cardiovascular events: A cross-sectional chart review study (STONE HF).

AIMS: To characterize clinical profiles, prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and treatment patterns in type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure (HF) patients in Finnish primary care. METHODS: A total of 1385 patients (1196 with T2D, 50 with HF, and 139 with T2D and HF) in 60 Finnish primary care centers were recruited to this cross-sectional study. Data on demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory measurements, and medications were collected retrospectively from medical records. T2D patients were classified according to their risk of cardiovascular (CV) events as very high-risk (62%) and other patients (38%). RESULTS: Of the T2D patients, 10% (139/1335) had a diagnosis of HF and 42% (457/1090) had stage 3-5 CKD and/or albuminuria based on laboratory measurement. Of the HF patients, 74% (139/189) had T2D and 78% (114/146) had stage 3-5 CKD and/or albuminuria. Metformin was the most frequently used medication in both very high-risk patients (74%) and other patients (86%). SGLT2 inhibitors and/or GLP-1 analogues were used by 37% of very high-risk patients compared to 42% in other patients. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of T2D patients in Finnish primary care are at very high risk of cardiovascular events. However, the implementation of treatments with proven cardioprotective effects in very high-risk patients is currently suboptimal.

Polydextrose with and without Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 drives the prevalence of Akkermansia and improves liver health in a multi-compartmental obesogenic mice study.

The past two decades of research have raised gut microbiota composition as a contributing factor to the development of obesity, and higher abundance of certain bacterial species has been linked to the lean phenotype, such as Akkermansia muciniphila. The ability of pre- and probiotics to affect metabolic health could be via microbial community alterations and subsequently changes in metabolite profiles, modulating for example host energy balance via complex signaling pathways. The aim of this mice study was to determine how administration of a prebiotic fiber, polydextrose (PDX) and a probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 (B420), during high fat diet (HFD; 60 kcal% fat) affects microbiota composition in the gastrointestinal tract and adipose tissue, and metabolite levels in gut and liver. In this study C57Bl/6J mice (N = 200) were split in five treatments and daily gavaged: 1) Normal control (NC); 2) HFD; 3) HFD + PDX; 4) HFD + B420 or 5) HFD + PDX + B420 (HFD+S). At six weeks of treatment intraperitoneal glucose-tolerance test (IPGTT) was performed, and feces were collected at weeks 0, 3, 6 and 9. At end of the intervention, ileum and colon mucosa, adipose tissue and liver samples were collected. The microbiota composition in fecal, ileum, colon and adipose tissue was analyzed using 16S rDNA sequencing, fecal and liver metabolomics were performed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. It was found that HFD+PDX intervention reduced body weight gain and hepatic fat compared to HFD. Sequencing the mice adipose tissue (MAT) identified Akkermansia and its prevalence was increased in HFD+S group. Furthermore, by the inclusion of PDX, fecal, lleum and colon levels of Akkermansia were increased and liver health was improved as the detoxification capacity and levels of methyl-donors were increased. These new results demonstrate how PDX and B420 can affect the interactions between gut, liver and adipose tissue.

Strain specific stress-modulating effects of candidate probiotics: A systematic screening in a mouse model of chronic restraint stress.

BACKGROUND: Changes in the gut microbiota have been implicated in mood and cognition. In rodents, supplementation with certain bacteria have been shown to alleviate adverse effects of stress on gut microbiota composition and behaviour, but little is known of how the performance of different strains compare to each other. We took a systematic approach to test the efficacy of twelve candidate probiotic strains from ten species/sub-species of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus on behaviours and neuroendocrine responses of chronically stressed mice. METHODS: The strains were tested in four screening experiments with non-stressed and chronically stressed vehicle groups. The three most efficacious strains were re-tested to validate the results. Mice were administered a daily oral gavage containing either 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) of selected candidate probiotic or saline solution for one week prior to and for three weeks during daily chronic restraint stress. Behavioural tests including the elevated plus maze, open field, novel object recognition, and forced swim test were applied during week five. Corticosterone and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) were analysed to measure the neuroendocrine response to stress. Plasma and tissue samples were collected for biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Of the twelve candidate probiotics, Lactobacillus paracasei Lpc-37, Lactobacillus plantarum LP12407, Lactobacillus plantarum LP12418 and Lactobacillus plantarum LP12151 prevented stress-associated anxiety and depression-related behaviours from developing compared with chronically stressed vehicle mice. In addition, Lpc-37 improved cognition. CONCLUSION: This systematic screening indicates species- and strain-dependent effects on behavioural outcomes related to stress and further suggests that strains differ from each other in their effects on potential mechanistic outcomes.

Probiotic With or Without Fiber Controls Body Fat Mass, Associated With Serum Zonulin, in Overweight and Obese Adults-Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The gut microbiota is interlinked with obesity, but direct evidence of effects of its modulation on body fat mass is still scarce. We investigated the possible effects of Bifidobacterium animalisssp. lactis 420 (B420) and the dietary fiber Litesse® Ultra polydextrose (LU) on body fat mass and other obesity-related parameters. METHODS: 225 healthy volunteers (healthy, BMI 28-34.9) were randomized into four groups (1:1:1:1), using a computer-generated sequence, for 6months of double-blind, parallel treatment: 1) Placebo, microcrystalline cellulose, 12g/d; 2) LU, 12g/d; 3) B420, 1010CFU/d in microcrystalline cellulose, 12g/d; 4) LU+B420, 12g+1010CFU/d. Body composition was monitored with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and the primary outcome was relative change in body fat mass, comparing treatment groups to Placebo. Other outcomes included anthropometric measurements, food intake and blood and fecal biomarkers. The study was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01978691). FINDINGS: There were marked differences in the results of the Intention-To-Treat (ITT; n=209) and Per Protocol (PP; n=134) study populations. The PP analysis included only those participants who completed the intervention with >80% product compliance and no antibiotic use. In addition, three participants were excluded from DXA analyses for PP due to a long delay between the end of intervention and the last DXA measurement. There were no significant differences between groups in body fat mass in the ITT population. However, LU+B420 and B420 seemed to improve weight management in the PP population. For relative change in body fat mass, LU+B420 showed a-4.5% (-1.4kg, P=0.02, N=37) difference to the Placebo group, whereas LU (+0.3%, P=1.00, N=35) and B420 (-3.0%, P=0.28, N=24) alone had no effect (overall ANOVA P=0.095, Placebo N=35). A post-hoc factorial analysis was significant for B420 (-4.0%, P=0.002 vs. Placebo). Changes in fat mass were most pronounced in the abdominal region, and were reflected by similar changes in waist circumference. B420 and LU+B420 also significantly reduced energy intake compared to Placebo. Changes in blood zonulin levels and hsCRP were associated with corresponding changes in trunk fat mass in the LU+B420 group and in the overall population. There were no differences between groups in the incidence of adverse events. DISCUSSION: This clinical trial demonstrates that a probiotic product with or without dietary fiber controls body fat mass. B420 and LU+B420 also reduced waist circumference and food intake, whereas LU alone had no effect on the measured outcomes.

Probiotic B420 and prebiotic polydextrose improve efficacy of antidiabetic drugs in mice.

BACKGROUND: Gut microbiota is now known to control glucose metabolism. Previous studies have shown that probiotics and prebiotics may improve glucose metabolism, but their effects have not been studied in combination with drug therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate whether probiotics and prebiotics combined with drug therapy affect diabetic outcomes. METHODS: Two different study designs were used to test gut microbiota modulating treatments with metformin (MET) or sitagliptin (SITA) in male C57Bl/6J mice. In Design 1, diabetes was induced with four-week feeding with a ketogenic, 72 kcal% fat diet with virtually no carbohydrates. Mice were then randomly divided into four groups (n = 10 in each group): (1) vehicle, (2) Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 (B420) (10(9) CFU/day), (3) MET (2 mg/mL in drinking water), or (4) MET + B420 (same doses as in the MET and B420 groups). After another 4 weeks, glucose metabolism was assessed with a glucose tolerance test. Fasting glucose, fasting insulin and HOMA-IR were also assessed. In Design 2, mice were fed the same 72 kcal% fat diet to induce diabetes, but they were simultaneously treated within their respective groups (n = 8 in each group): (1) non-diabetic healthy control, (2) vehicle, (3) SITA [3 mg/(kg*day)] (4) SITA with prebiotic polydextrose (PDX) (0.25 g/day), (5) SITA with B420 (10(9) CFU/day), and (6) SITA + PDX + B420. Glucose metabolism was assessed at 4 weeks, and weight development was monitored for 6 weeks. RESULTS: In Design 1, with low-dose metformin, mice treated with B420 had a significantly lower glycemic response (area under the curve) (factorial experiment, P = 0.002) and plasma glucose concentration (P = 0.02) compared to mice not treated with B420. In Design 2, SITA + PDX reduced glycaemia in the oral glucose tolerance test significantly more than SITA only (area under the curve reduced 28 %, P < 0.0001). In addition, B420, PDX or B420+PDX, together with SITA, further decreased fasting glucose concentrations compared to SITA only (-19.5, -40 and -49 %, respectively, P < 0.01 for each comparison). The effect of PDX may be due to its ability to increase portal vein GLP-1 concentrations together with SITA (P = 0.0001 compared to vehicle) whereas SITA alone had no statistically significant effect compared to vehicle (P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes that combining probiotics and/or prebiotics with antidiabetic drugs improves glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in mice. Mechanisms could be related to incretin secretion.

Higher fecal bile acid hydrophobicity is associated with exacerbation of dextran sodium sulfate colitis in mice.

Increased luminal bile acid hydrophobicity is associated with cytotoxicity and has been suggested to contribute to gut barrier dysfunction. The aim of this study was to compare 2 high-fat diets and a low-fat diet as to whether they modify fecal bile acid profile and hydrophobicity and/or susceptibility to dextran sodium sulfate (DSS) colitis in C57Bl/6J mice. Control and DSS-Control groups received a low-fat control diet [5.5% of total energy (E%) soy oil, 4.5 E% lard], and the DSS-Lard (5.5 E% soy oil, 54.5 E% lard) and DSS-Fish oil (5.5 E% soy oil, 27.2 E% lard and 27.2% menhaden oil) groups received high-fat diets. Feces for bile acid analysis were collected after 3-wk feeding, followed by induction of dextran DSS colitis (2 d 5% DSS in drinking water + 2 d tap water). Fecal bile acid hydrophobicity was elevated 76% in the lard group (P = 0.051) and 122% in the fish oil group (P = 0.001) compared with control, indicating potentially increased cytotoxicity. DSS caused severe colitis symptoms, evaluated as rectal bleeding, whereas all the controls were symptom free. The median symptom scores were: DSS-Control, 2.3 (IQR = 0.6, 3.0); DSS-Lard, 0.3 (IQR = 0, 2.3); and DSS-Fish oil, 2.4 (IQR = 1.9, 2.8). The only differences were DSS-Control vs. control (P < 0.001) and DSS-Fish oil vs. control (P < 0.001). Severity of symptoms in all colitic mice was positively correlated with fecal bile acid hydrophobicity (Spearman's ρ = 0.43; P = 0.028) and fecal deoxycholic acid concentration (Spearman's ρ = 0.39; P = 0.048). These results suggest that luminal bile acid modification, induced by altered dietary fat composition, may alter susceptibility to DSS colitis.

Genetically obese mice do not show increased gut permeability or faecal bile acid hydrophobicity.

Gut barrier dysfunction may lead to metabolic endotoxaemia and low-grade inflammation. Recent publications have demonstrated gut barrier dysfunction in obesity induced by a diet high in fat, and a pathogenetic role for luminal bile acids has been proposed. We aimed to investigate whether genetically obese mice develop increased gut permeability and alterations in luminal bile acids on a diet with a regular fat content. We used seven obese male ob/ob mice of C57BL/6J background and ten male wild-type (WT) mice of the same strain. Faeces were collected for bile acid analysis. Intestinal permeability was measured in an Ussing chamber upon euthanasia, using 4 kDa fluorescein isothiocyanate dextran, as per mille (‰, 1/1000) of translocated dextran. We analysed the liver expression of lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP), as well as serum LBP (ELISA). Intestinal permeability was not affected by genetic obesity (jejunum: 0·234 (sem 0·04) ‰ for obese v. 0·225 (sem 0·03) ‰ for WT, P= 0·93; colon: 0·222 (sem 0·06) ‰ for obese v. 0·184 (sem 0·03) ‰ for WT, P= 0·86), nor was liver LBP expression (relative expression: 0·55 (sem 0·08) for obese v. 0·55 (sem 0·13) for WT, P= 0·70). Serum LBP was 2·5-fold higher in obese than in WT mice (P= 0·001). Obese mice had increased daily excretion of total bile acids, but their faecal bile acid hydrophobicity was unchanged. In conclusion, genetic obesity did not impair gut barrier function in mice on a regular chow diet, nor was faecal bile acid hydrophobicity affected.

A novel mechanism for gut barrier dysfunction by dietary fat: epithelial disruption by hydrophobic bile acids.

Impairment of gut barrier is associated with a fat-rich diet, but mechanisms are unknown. We have earlier shown that dietary fat modifies fecal bile acids in mice, decreasing the proportion of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) vs. deoxycholic acid (DCA). To clarify the potential role of bile acids in fat-induced barrier dysfunction, we here investigated how physiological concentrations of DCA and UDCA affect barrier function in mouse intestinal tissue. Bile acid experiments were conducted in vitro in Ussing chambers using 4- and 20-kDa FITC-labeled dextrans. Epithelial integrity and inflammation were assayed by histology and Western blot analysis for cyclooxygenase-2. LPS was studied in DCA-induced barrier dysfunction. Finally, we investigated in a 10-wk in vivo feeding trial in mice the barrier-disrupting effect of a diet containing 0.1% DCA. DCA disrupted epithelial integrity dose dependently at 1-3 mM, which correspond to physiological concentrations on a high-fat diet. Low-fat diet-related concentrations of DCA had no effect. In vivo, the DCA-containing diet increased intestinal permeability 1.5-fold compared with control (P = 0.016). Hematoxylin-eosin staining showed a clear disruption of the epithelial barrier by 3 mM DCA in vitro. A short-term treatment by DCA did not increase cyclooxygenase-2 content in colon preparations. UDCA did not affect barrier function itself, but it ameliorated DCA-induced barrier disruption at a 0.6 mM concentration. LPS had no significant effect on barrier function at 0.5-4.5 µg/ml concentrations. We suggest a novel mechanism for barrier dysfunction on a high-fat diet involving the effect of hydrophobic luminal bile acids.

High-fat-induced intestinal permeability dysfunction associated with altered fecal bile acids.

AIM: To investigate whether high-fat-feeding is associated with increased intestinal permeability via alterations in bile acid metabolism. METHODS: Male C57Bl/6J mice were fed on a high-fat (n = 26) or low-fat diet (n = 24) for 15 wk. Intestinal permeability was measured from duodenum, jejunum, ileum and colon in an Ussing chamber system using 4 kDa FITC-labeled dextran as an indicator. Fecal bile acids were analyzed with gas chromatography. Segments of jejunum and colon were analyzed for the expression of farnesoid X receptor (FXR) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF). RESULTS: Intestinal permeability was significantly increased by high-fat feeding in jejunum (median 0.334 for control vs 0.393 for high-fat, P = 0.03) and colon (0.335 for control vs 0.433 for high-fat, P = 0.01), but not in duodenum or ileum. The concentration of nearly all identified bile acids was significantly increased by high-fat feeding (P < 0.001). The proportion of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in all bile acids was decreased (1.4% ± 0.1% in high-fat vs 2.8% ± 0.3% in controls, P < 0.01) and correlated inversely with intestinal permeability (r = -0.72, P = 0.01). High-fat feeding also increased jejunal FXR expression, as well as TNF expression along the intestine, especially in the colon. CONCLUSION: High-fat-feeding increased intestinal permeability, perhaps by a mechanism related to bile acid metabolism, namely a decreased proportion of fecal UDCA and increased FXR expression.