Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27340358›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2016

Intestinal-borne dermatoses significantly improved by oral application of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917.

Elina Manzhalii, Daniel Hornuss, Wolfgang Stremmel

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Effects ofIranian journal of veterinary research · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Elina ManzhaliiElina Manzhalii, Department of Propedeutics of Internal Medicine 2, Bogomolets National Medical University, 02097 City of Kiev, Ukraine.
Daniel HornussElina Manzhalii, Department of Propedeutics of Internal Medicine 2, Bogomolets National Medical University, 02097 City of Kiev, Ukraine.
Wolfgang StremmelElina Manzhalii, Department of Propedeutics of Internal Medicine 2, Bogomolets National Medical University, 02097 City of Kiev, Ukraine.
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEBogomolets National Medical University · UA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the effect of oral Escherichia coli (E. coli) Nissle application on the outcome of intestinal-borne dermatoses.

methodsIn a randomized, controlled, non-blinded prospective clinical trial 82 patients with intestinal-borne facial dermatoses characterized by an erythematous papular-pustular rash were screened. At the initiation visit 37 patients entered the experimental arm and 20 patients constituted the control arm. All 57 patients were treated with a vegetarian diet and conventional topical therapy of the dermatoses with ointments containing tetracycline, steroids and retinoids. In the experimental arm patients received a one month therapy with oral E. coli Nissle at a maintenance dose of 2 capsules daily. The experimental group was compared to a non-treatment group only receiving the diet and topical therapy. The primary outcome parameter was improvement of the dermatoses, secondary parameters included life quality and adverse events. In addition the immunological reaction profile (IgA, interleucin-8 and interferon-α) was determined. Furthermore the changes of stool consistency and the microbiota composition over the time of intervention were recorded.

resultsEighty-nine percent of the patients with acne, papular-pustular rosacea and seborrhoic dermatitis responded to E. coli Nissle therapy with significant amelioration or complete recovery in contrast to 56% in the control arm (P < 0.01). Accordingly, in the E. coli Nissle treated patients life quality improved significantly (P < 0.01), and adverse events were not recorded. The clinical improvement was associated with a significant increase of IgA levels to normal values in serum as well as suppression of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-8 (P < 0.01 for both parameters). In the E. coli Nissle treated group a shift towards a protective microbiota with predominance of bifidobacteria and lactobacteria (> 10(7) CFU/g stool) was observed in 79% and 63% of the patients, respectively (P < 0.01), compared to no change in the control group without E. coli Nissle. Moreover, the detection rate of a pathogenic flora dropped from 73% to 14 % of the patients in the experimental arm (P < 0.01) with no significant change in the control arm (accounting 80% before and 70% after the observation period, P > 0.05). Accordingly, stool consistency, color and smell normalized in the E. coli Nissle treated patients.

conclusionE. coli Nissle protects the mucus barrier by overgrowth of a favorable gut microbiota with less immunoreactive potential which finally leads to clinical improvement of intestinal borne dermatoses.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAdministration, CutaneousAdministration, OralAdultBiological TherapyCapsulesDiet, VegetarianEscherichia coliFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin AInterferon-alphaInterleukin-8Intestinal DiseasesIntestinesMaleCapsulesCXCL8 protein, humanImmunoglobulin AInterferon-alphaInterleukin-8Escherichia coli Nissle 1917Gut microbiotaIgAImmunological responseInterferon-αInterleukin-8Intestinal-borne dermatoses

Identifiers

PMID27340358
PMCPMC4910662
OpenAlexW2413180475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.