Double-Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of a Lactobacillus Probiotic Blend in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gut microbiota modulate systemic anti-inflammatory and immune responses in the lungs, suggesting a potential to support lung health through probiotic supplementation. We hypothesized that a probiotic blend (Lactobacilli) combined with herbal extracts (resB®) could improve quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study (NCT05523180) evaluating the safety and impact of resB® on quality of life in volunteers with COPD. Participants took resB® or placebo (two capsules daily) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in quality of life by Saint George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Secondary outcomes included safety, serum and sputum biomarkers, and microbiome analysis. resB® was well tolerated with no related adverse events. Participants receiving resB® showed significant improvement in SGRQ symptom scores (P < 0.05), while placebo recipients did not. In the resB® group, serum and sputum levels of matrix metalloproteinase 9, C-reactive protein, and interleukin 6 decreased (P < 0.05), correlating with increased stool Lactobacilli. Additionally, Veillonella abundance increased in both stool and sputum. These findings suggest that resB® improves respiratory symptoms and reduces inflammation in patients with COPD, potentially by modulating gut and lung microbiota. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05523180. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a long-term lung condition that makes breathing difficult and greatly affects quality of life. Current treatments mostly focus on reducing symptoms, but there is a need for safe supportive approaches. The gut and the lungs communicate through what is known as the “gut–lung axis.” Changes in gut bacteria can influence inflammation and immunity in the lungs. Probiotics (beneficial bacteria) and plant-based extracts may help improve this communication and support lung health. In this study, adults with COPD were randomly assigned to receive either a probiotic and herbal blend (resB®) or a placebo for 12 weeks. Participants and researchers did not know which treatment each person received until the study ended. The main outcome was change in quality of life, measured by the Saint George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). We also looked at safety, inflammation in the blood and sputum, and changes in gut and lung bacteria. We found that resB® was safe and well tolerated. People who took resB® showed improvement in COPD-related symptoms compared to those who received placebo. Inflammatory markers in the blood and sputum decreased, and certain beneficial bacteria became more abundant in the gut and lungs. These results suggest that resB® may support people with COPD by improving symptoms and reducing inflammation. More research in larger studies is needed to confirm these findings and better understand how probiotics and plant extracts work through the gut–lung axis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".