ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2021
Searching for the one(s): Using Probiotics as Anthelmintic Treatments.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parasite-microbiota interactions: a pathway to innovative interventions for Chagas disease, leishmaniasis, and ascariasis.Future microbiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Impact of Bacillus licheniformis from yaks following antibiotic therapy in mouse model.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Parasites and Microbiota: Dual Interactions and Therapeutic Perspectives.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Review
- Antiparasitic Action ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Probiotics beyond the farm: Benefits, costs, and considerations of using antibiotic alternatives in livestock.Frontiers in antibiotics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Helminths are a major health concern as over one billion people are infected worldwide and, despite the multiple efforts made, there is still no effective human vaccine against them. The most important drugs used nowadays to control helminth infections belong to the benzimidazoles, imidazothiazoles (levamisole) and macrocyclic lactones (avermectins and milbemycins) families. However, in the last 20 years, many publications have revealed increasing anthelmintic resistance in livestock which is both an economical and a potential health problem, even though very few have reported similar findings in human populations. To deal with this worrying limitation of anthelmintic drugs, alternative treatments based on plant extracts or probiotics have been developed. Probiotics are defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization as live microorganisms, which, when consumed in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit to the host. It has been proven that probiotic microbes have the ability to exert an immunomodulatory effect both at the mucosa and the systemic level. The immune response against gastrointestinal helminths is characterized as a type 2 response, with high IgE levels, increased numbers and/or activity of Th2 cells, type 2 innate lymphoid cells, eosinophils, basophils, mast cells, and alternatively activated macrophages. The oral administration of probiotics may contribute to controlling gastrointestinal helminth infections since it has been demonstrated that these microorganisms stimulate dendritic cells to elicit a type 2 or regulatory immune response, among other effects on the host immune system. Here we review the current knowledge about the use of probiotic bacteria as anthelmintic therapy or as a complement to traditional anthelmintic treatments. Considering all research papers reviewed, we may conclude that the effect generated by probiotics on helminth infection depends not only on the parasite species, their stage and localization but also on the administration scheme.
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.