Effects of supplemental probiotics on the changes of immunity and microecology in asthmatic children
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1008?6315.2018.02.002
- VernacularTitle:补充益生菌对喘息性支气管炎患儿免疫和微生态变化的影响
- Author:
Bin WANG
1
;
Panpan ZHANG
;
Xiangke CAO
;
Qingzeng QIAN
;
Haiyan LIU
Author Information
1. 华北理工大学附属医院儿科
- Keywords:
Probiotics;
Wheezing;
Bronchitis;
Children;
Immunity;
Microecology
- From:Clinical Medicine of China
2018;34(2):109-114
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the influence of supplemental probiotics on the changes of immunity and microecology in asthmatic children. Methods One hundred and seventy?six asthmatic children treated in the Affiliated Hospital of North China University of Science and Technology from October 2015 to October 2016 were selected in the study and were randomly divided into two groups, 88 cases in each group. Patients in the control group were given routine treatment, and the observation group was treated with routine treatment combined with probiotics. The changes in immune index and microecological index before and after the treatment were compared between the two groups. Results After treatment, the observation showed CD3+ was(65. 8±2. 6)％,CD4+was(39. 2±1. 3)％,CD8+ was(24. 5±1. 0)％,CD4+/CD8+ was(1. 6±0. 2),NK cells was(15.2±0.4)％,Th1/ Th2 was(5.7±1.3),interferon γ was(56.3±1.8)ng/L,bifidobacterium was (9. 3±0. 7)lgCFU/g,lactobacillus was(9. 5±0. 6)lgCFU/g,yeast was(6. 6±0. 8)lgCFU/g,compared with those before treatment ((52. 5±1. 7)％,(23. 6±0. 8)％,(19. 7±0. 9)％,(1. 2±0. 1),(12. 8±0. 3)％,(3. 4±0. 7), (44.0±1.5)ng/L,(4.2±1.1)lgCFU/g,(4.9±0.4)lgCFU/g,(3.7±0.4)lgCFU/g),the differences were statistically significant ( t= 5. 533, 9. 957, 5. 436, 6. 332, 4. 875, 9. 764, 5. 727, 15. 143, 12. 387, 10. 837, P<0. 05). After treatment,in the control group,CD3+ was(60. 1±3. 4)％,CD4+ was(30. 7±1. 2)％,CD8+ was (21.9±1.1)％,CD4+/ CD8+ was(1.4±0.3),NK cells was(14.0±0.3)％,Th1/ Th2 was(4.6±0.9), interferon γ was ( 50. 2 ± 1. 4 ) ng/L, bifidobacterium was ( 7. 6 ± 0. 8 ) lgCFU/g, lactobacillus was ( 8. 1 ± 0. 7 ) lgCFU/g, yeast was ( 4. 9 ± 0. 8 ) lgCFU/g, compared with those before treatment ( ( 52. 4 ± 2. 0 )％, ( 23. 8 ±0. 7)％,(19. 8±0. 6)％,(1. 2±0. 2),(12. 7±0. 2)％,(3. 5±1. 1),(44. 1±1. 3)ng/L,(4. 3±0. 9)lgCFU/g, (5.0±0.5)lgCFU/g,(3.8±0.6)lgCFU/g),the differences were statistically significant(t=4.469,5.899, 4. 061,4. 667,4. 023,6. 143,4. 363,10. 674,9. 201,5. 894,P<0. 05) . The above indexes in observation group were higher than those in the control group ( t=3. 948, 3. 162, 4. 187, 4. 428, 3. 857, 5. 391, 4. 202, 5. 236, 4. 728,6. 469,P<0. 05). After treatment,the observation group showed IgE(139. 4±21. 0)was kU/L,IL?4(30. 2 ±1. 7)was ng/L,IL?10 was(6. 3±0. 8)ng/L,escherichia coli was(4. 8±0. 6)lgCFU/g,streptococcus was(6. 1 ±0.9)lgCFU/g,bacillus was(4.6±0.2)lgCFU/g,staphylococcus was(1.9±0.3)lgCFU/g,enterococcus was (5.2±0.4)lgCFU/g,compared with those before treatment((381.2±49.6)kU/L,(59.4±3.5)ng/L,(13.9 ±1.1)ng/L,(7.1±0.5)lgCFU/g,(8.4±0.6)lgCFU/g,(8.0±0.6)lgCFU/g,(4.0±0.8)lgCFU/g,(7.4 ±0. 8)lgCFU/g),while the differences were statictically significant (t=22. 231,12. 667,15. 063,7. 791,6. 770, 10. 392,16. 523,7. 232,P<0. 05). After treatment,in control group showed IgE was (230. 8±31. 7) kU/L,IL?4 was (41. 3±2. 3)ng/L,IL?10 was (9. 8±0. 7)ng/L,escherichia coli was (5. 9±0. 7)lgCFU/g,streptococcus was (7. 2±1. 0)lgCFU/g,bacillus was (6. 4±0. 8)lgCFU/g,staphylococcus was(2. 7±0. 7)lgCFU/g,enterococcus was (6.1±0.6)lgCFU/g,compared with those before treatment((387.9±54.3)kU/L,(59.6±3.4)ng/L, (13. 7±1. 2)ng/L,(7. 0±0. 4)lgCFU/g,(8. 3±0. 5)lgCFU/g,(8. 1±0. 7)lgCFU/g,(4. 1±1. 0)lgCFU/g,(7. 3 ± 0. 7 ) lgCFU/g ) , while there were significant differences ( t= 9. 826, 7. 390, 6. 979, 4. 864, 4. 527, 5. 656、8. 185,4. 967,P<0. 05). The above indexes in observation group were lower than those in the control group(t=9. 618,6. 713,8. 556,5. 290,4. 803,6. 913,7. 215,4. 731,P<0. 05) . The intestinal flora time was ( 5. 6 ± 1) d,hospitalization time was (10. 2 ± 1. 3) d,hospitalization expenses (3527. 1 ± 403. 2) RMB in the observation group,compared with (10. 7±1. 8)d,(14. 6±2. 1)d,(4689. 4±526. 7)RMB in the control group,the differences between the two groups were statistically significant ( t= 12. 107, 7. 314, 6. 295, P<0. 05 ) . Conclusion Probiotic supplement can improve immune status and microecology status in asthmatic children,which is worthy of clinical use.
