Trial reportEuropean journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics2021
Kinetics of Intestinal Presence of Spores Following Oral Administration of Bacillus clausii Formulations: Three Single-Centre, Crossover, Randomised, Open-Label Studies.
Trial report in European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Progress and Future Perspectives on the Use of Bacillus clausiiMicroorganisms · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveProbiotics are live microorganisms that may provide benefits including the prevention of gastrointestinal disorders and other diseases. Enterogermina is a probiotic mix of spores from four strains of Bacillus clausii (O/C, T, N/R and SIN), available in several oral formulations. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate and compare the kinetic profiles of different formulations of Enterogermina-vial [E4 once daily (OD) and E2 twice daily (BID)], capsule [EC2 three times daily (TID)], oral powder for suspension (ES6 OD) and oral powder not requiring suspension (E6 OD) from two studies from 2012 (EUDRACT 2010-024497-19 and 2010-023187-41) and one study from 2016 (EUDRACT 2015-003330-27).
methodsB. clausii spores were counted in homogenised faecal samples (results expressed as counts per gram) or after culture at 37 °C for 24-36 h (results expressed as colony-forming units). Kinetics were assessed by area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), maximum concentration (C
resultsIn total, 22 subjects in each of the 2012 studies and 30 subjects in the 2016 study were randomised (mean age 25.0-33.8 years across studies). The mean (±SD) absolute faecal spore counts (in millions) expressed as AUC per hour were 270.7 ± 147.7 (E2 BID) and 213.8 ± 60.2 (E4 OD) in 2012 EGKINETIC4, 312.7 ± 218.0 (EC2 TID) and 319.0 ± 221.1 (ES6 OD) in 2012 EGKINETIC6, and 212.6 ± 118.0 (E6 OD) and 293.2 ± 247.2 (ES6 OD) in 2016 EGKINETIC6OP. The kinetic profiles of the different formulations of Enterogermina were similar, with superimposable AUC and daily curve profiles in each study up to the 8th day post dose. B. clausii spore presence/persistence in the intestine of healthy volunteers did not differ between the two formulations within each of the three studies. Enterogermina was well tolerated across all formulations and studies.
conclusionThese results show different formulations of Enterogermina had similar kinetic profiles within each study; however, they also showed that probiotics could be associated with high variability. The European Medicines Agency guidelines are the current bioequivalence reference, although only the T
trial registrationEUDRACT 2010-024497-19, 2010-023187-41 and 2015-003330-27.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.