Cited by 38Probiotics and Fermented FoodsAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research

Comparison of two oral probiotic preparations in a randomized crossover trial highlights a potentially beneficial effect of Lactobacillus paracasei NCC2461 in patients with allergic rhinitis

Open access
Perrin, Yannick, Nutten, Sophie, Audran, Régine, Berger, Bernard, Bibiloni, Rodrigo, Wassenberg, Jacqueline, Barbier, Nathalie, Aubert, Vincent +5 more·2014·Clinical and Translational Allergy

Abstract

Background: There is promising but conflicting evidence to recommend the addition of probiotics to foods for prevention and treatment of allergy. Based on previous studies with fermented milk containing Lactobacillus paracasei NCC2461, we aimed to compare the effect of a powder form of the latter probiotic with the effect of a blend of Lactobacillus acidophilus ATCC SD5221 and Bifidobacterium lactis ATCC SD5219 in patients with allergic rhinitis. Methods: A double‐blind, randomized, cross‐over study, involving 31 adults with allergic rhinitis to grass pollen, was performed outside the grass pollen season (registration number: NCT01233154). Subjects received each product for 4‐weeks in two phases separated by a wash‐out period of 6 to 8 weeks. A nasal provocation test was performed before and after each 4‐week product intake period, and outcome parameters (objective and subjective clinical symptoms; immune parameters) were measured during and/or 24 hours after the test. Results: Out of the 31 subject enrolled, 28 completed the study. While no effect was observed on nasal congestion (primary outcome), treatment with NCC2461 significantly decreased nasal pruritus (determined by VAS), and leukocytes in nasal fluid samples, enhanced IL‐5, IL‐13 and IL‐10 production by peripheral blood mononuclear cells in an allergen specific manner and tended to decrease IL‐5 secretion in nasal fluid, in contrast to treatment with the blend of L. acidophilus and B. lactis . Conclusions: Despite short‐term consumption, NCC2461 was able to reduce subjective nasal pruritus while not affecting nasal congestion in adults suffering from grass pollen allergic rhinitis. The associated decrease in nasal fluid leukocytes and IL‐5 secretion, and the enhanced IL‐10 secretion in an allergen specific manner may partly explain the decrease in nasal pruritus. However, somewhat unexpected systemic immune changes were also noted. These data support the study of NCC2461 consumption in a seasonal clinical trial to further demonstrate its potentially beneficial effect.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/2045-7022-4-1

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a double-blind, randomized, cross-over study involving 31 adults with allergic rhinitis to grass pollen, short-term consumption of Lactobacillus paracasei NCC2461 reduced subjective nasal pruritus.

    “In a doubleblind, randomized, cross-over study, involving 31 adults with allergic rhinitis to grass pollen, Perrin and colleagues demonstrated that short-term consumption of Lactobacillus paracasei NCC2461 reduced subjective nasal pruritus”
  • Short-term consumption of Lactobacillus paracasei NCC2461 did not affect nasal congestion in adults with allergic rhinitis to grass pollen.

    “whilst not affecting nasal congestion [156]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perrin, Y., Nutten, S., Audran, R., Berger, B., Bibiloni, R., Wassenberg, J., Barbier, N., Aubert, V., Moulin, J., Singh, A., Magliola, C., Mercenier, A., & Spertini, F.
Affiliations
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
  • Nestlé (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Division of Immunology and Allergy Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois Lausanne Switzerland
  • AgResearch (NZ)
Corresponding author
Nutten, Sophie
Venue
Clinical and Translational Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
1-1
ISSN
2045-7022 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2121681628
Cited by
38
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5
FWCI
6.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical and Translational Allergy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Keywords
probiotics, allergic rhinitis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, grass pollen allergy, nasal pruritus, nasal congestion, IL-5, IL-13, IL-10, allergen-specific immune response, oral probiotic supplementation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review