ReviewFolia microbiologica2026
Oral versus intranasal probiotics for nasal microbiome modulation: a comparative review of route-dependent mechanisms and clinical implications.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
42909557What 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.