SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

An open label, non-randomized study assessing a prebiotic fiber intervention in a small cohort of Parkinson's disease participants.

Nat Commun · 2023-02-18

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-36497-xPMID: 36801916

Open accessClinical Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

A pro-inflammatory intestinal microbiome is characteristic of Parkinson's disease (PD). Prebiotic fibers change the microbiome and this study sought to understand the utility of prebiotic fibers for use in PD patients. The first experiments demonstrate that fermentation of PD patient stool with prebiotic fibers increased the production of beneficial metabolites (short chain fatty acids, SCFA) and changed the microbiota demonstrating the capacity of PD microbiota to respond favorably to prebiotics. Subsequently, an open-label, non-randomized study was conducted in newly diagnosed, non-medicated (n = 10) and treated PD participants (n = 10) wherein the impact of 10 days of prebiotic intervention was evaluated. Outcomes demonstrate that the prebiotic intervention was well tolerated (primary outcome) and safe (secondary outcome) in PD participants and was associated with beneficial biological changes in the microbiota, SCFA, inflammation, and neurofilament light chain. Exploratory analyses indicate effects on clinically relevant outcomes. This proof-of-concept study offers the scientific rationale for placebo-controlled trials using prebiotic fibers in PD patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04512599.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.