Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Jun 27:13:940500.
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.940500. eCollection 2022.

Improvement Effect of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis MH-02 in Patients Receiving Resection of Colorectal Polyps: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Hui Liu  1   2 , Kaige Zhang  1   2 , Peng Liu  2 , Xuan Xu  3 , Yuyang Zhou  1   2 , Lihong Gan  2 , Ling Yao  2 , Bin Li  2 , Tingtao Chen  4 , Nian Fang  1   2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Improvement Effect of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis MH-02 in Patients Receiving Resection of Colorectal Polyps: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Hui Liu et al. Front Immunol. .

Abstract

Background: Postoperative symptoms, bowel dysfunction and recurrence are common problems after resection of colorectal polyps. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Bifidobacterium in the postoperative patients.

Methods: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥ 18 years) undergoing endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps were treated with probiotics (Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis MH-02, 2 × 109 colony-forming units per packet) or placebo once daily for 7 days. The primary clinical endpoint was a reduction in the mean total postoperative symptoms score within 7 days postoperatively. Secondary clinical endpoints were the single symptom scores, time to recovery of bowel function, and changes in the intestinal microbiota. This study is registered with the number ChiCTR2100046687.

Results: A total of 100 individuals were included (48 in probiotic group and 52 in placebo group). No difference was seen in the mean scores between the two groups (0.29 vs. 0.43, P = 0.246). Colorectal polyps size (P = 0.008) and preoperative symptoms (P = 0.032) were influential factors for the primary endpoint. Besides, MH-02 alleviated difficult defecation (P = 0.045), and reduced the time to recovery of bowel function (P = 0.032). High-throughput analysis showed that MH-02 can help restore the diversity of intestinal microbiota, and increased the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium, Roseburia, Gemmiger, Blautia and Ruminococcus, while reduced the relative abundance of Clostridium at genus level (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: In this prospective trial, MH-02 showed efficacy in patients with resection of colorectal polyps, particularly in the recovery of bowel function, and the changes in the intestinal microbiota may provide evidence for further exploration of the therapeutic mechanisms.

Keywords: Bifidobacterium; MH-02; colorectal polyps; intestinal microbiota; postoperative symptoms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
MH-02 had an improvement effect on postoperative intestinal microbiota. Values are presented as means ± SD (41 P-Bb, 44 P-N). (A) The Chao1 index. (B) The Goods coverage index. (C) The Observed species index. (D) The Shannon index. (E) PCoA of β-diversity index. (F) The clustered heat map of P-Bb and P-N. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Figure 3
Figure 3
MH-02 can help restore the majority of the postoperative intestinal microbiota towards healthy people. Values are presented as means ± SD (41 P-Bb, 44 P-N,20 C). (A–F) The relative abundance of Bifidobacterium, Ruminococcus, Roseburia, Blautia, Gemmiger and Clostridium. (G) The species composition analysis of P-Bb, P-N and C group. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns, no significant.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Oines M, Helsingen LM, Bretthauer M, Emilsson L. Epidemiology and Risk Factors of Colorectal Polyps. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol (2017) 31(4):419–24. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2017.06.004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pan J, Cen L, Xu L, Miao M, Li Y, Yu C, et al. . Prevalence and Risk Factors for Colorectal Polyps in a Chinese Population: A Retrospective Study. Sci Rep (2020) 10(1):6974. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-63827-6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Keum N, Giovannucci E. Global Burden of Colorectal Cancer: Emerging Trends, Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol (2019) 16(12):713–32. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0189-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ, Hoff G, Senore C, Segnan N, et al. . European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. First Edition–Colonoscopic Surveillance Following Adenoma Removal. Endoscopyα (2012) 44 Suppl 3:SE151–63. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1309821 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ko CW, Riffle S, Shapiro JA, Saunders MD, Lee SD, Tung BY, et al. . Incidence of Minor Complications and Time Lost From Normal Activities After Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. (2007) 65(4):648–56. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.06.020 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types