Premium
Preclinical relevance of probiotics in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Marques Anaísa Martins,
Sarandy Mariáurea Matias,
Novaes Rômulo Dias,
Gonçalves Reggiani Vilela,
Freitas Mariella Bontempo
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
international journal of experimental pathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.671
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1365-2613
pISSN - 0959-9673
DOI - 10.1111/iep.12359
Subject(s) - medline , systematic review , scopus , medicine , type 2 diabetes , disease , clinical study design , psychological intervention , intensive care medicine , gut flora , bioinformatics , diabetes mellitus , biology , clinical trial , immunology , biochemistry , psychiatry , endocrinology
Summary Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is among the most prevalent metabolic diseases in the world and may result in several long‐term complications. The crosstalk between gut microbiota and host metabolism is closely related to T2DM. Currently, fragmented data hamper defining the relationship between probiotics and T2DM. This systematic review aimed at investigating the effects of probiotics on T2DM in animal models. We systematically reviewed preclinical evidences using PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases, recovering 24 original articles published until September 27th, 2019. This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We included experimental studies with animal models reporting the effects of probiotics on T2DM. Studies were sorted by characteristics of publications, animal models, performed analyses, probiotic used and interventions. Bias analysis and methodological quality assessments were examined through the SYRCLE's Risk of Bias tool. Probiotics improved T2DM in 96% of the studies. Most studies (96%) used Lactobacillus strains, and all of them led to improved glycaemia. All studies used rodents as models, and male animals were preferred over females. Results suggest that probiotics have a beneficial effect in T2DM animals and could be used as a supporting alternative in the disease treatment. Considering a detailed evaluation of the reporting and methodological quality, the current preclinical evidence is at high risk of bias. We hope that our critical analysis will be useful in mitigating the sources of bias in further studies.