Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42909557›Full record

ReviewFolia microbiologica2026

Oral versus intranasal probiotics for nasal microbiome modulation: a comparative review of route-dependent mechanisms and clinical implications.

Zahra Saedi Dezzaki, Mohadese Hematian, Ali Khaleghi Panah, Mohammad Reza Ghanbari Boroujeni, Rahem Rahmati, Iraj Alipourfard

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Folia microbiologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Zahra Saedi DezzakiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Hajar Hospital, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran.
Mohadese HematianSchool of Medicine, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran.
Ali Khaleghi PanahSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.
Mohammad Reza Ghanbari BoroujeniSchool of Medicine, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran.
Rahem RahmatiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. Raaaahem@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7822-8759
Iraj AlipourfardDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Probiotic modulation of the nasal microbiome can be achieved through oral administration, which relies on the gut-nose axis and systemic immunomodulation, or direct intranasal instillation, which provides immediate local action. Despite growing evidence, no systematic comparison of these routes has been published. This narrative review synthesizes clinical and mechanistic evidence comparing oral versus intranasal probiotic strategies to inform route selection based on disease pathophysiology and strain-specific efficacy. We evaluated randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and mechanistic studies investigating probiotic interventions delivered via either route for upper respiratory conditions including allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, and pediatric respiratory infections. Orally administered probiotics may exert nasal effects through two mechanisms: (i) systemic immunomodulation via gut-derived short-chain fatty acids and tryptophan metabolites, supported by clinical data for Weizmannia coagulans BC99 and by a randomized controlled trial in children with perennial allergic rhinitis for Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis CCFM111; and (ii) direct oropharyngeal-to-nasopharyngeal trafficking, exemplified by a slow-release chewable Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG formulation that trafficked to the nasopharynx in 41% of users after 8 weeks, with a decrease in nasal IL-13 observed in both probiotic and placebo groups, and improved symptom control in the probiotic group. The B. longum and Lactobacillus plantarum combination NVP-1703 reduced type-2 cytokine ratios in children. Intranasal probiotics, including Bacillus spore sprays and Streptococcus salivarius 24SMB/S. oralis 89a, have shown pathogen displacement and clinical benefit in individual trials involving pediatric acute rhinosinusitis and otitis media, adenoid hypertrophy, and granulomatosis with polyangiitis-associated chronic rhinosinusitis, although within-group improvements in the latter were not consistently confirmed in between-group comparisons. However, a multi-strain Lactobacillus nasal spray failed in a crossover trial in seasonal allergic rhinitis, and a lactic acid bacterial spray of honeybee origin showed no benefit in chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, underscoring the importance of strain-disease matching. Route selection may tentatively be guided by disease pathophysiology: systemic type-2-driven conditions may favor oral immunomodulation, while acute localized dysbiosis may favor intranasal delivery. Priority research includes direct comparative trials, microbiome-based stratification, and sustained-release formulations. Until then, clinical decision-making must rely on mechanistic plausibility and strain-specific data.

Indexed as

AllergyGut-Nose axisImmunologyMicrobiomeMicrobiotaUpper Respiratory Infection

Identifiers

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.