4.7 Article

Hyperimmune Bovine Colostrum as a Novel Therapy to Combat Clostridium difficile Infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 211, 期 8, 页码 1334-1341

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiu605

关键词

Clostridium difficile; hyperimmune bovine colostrum; intestinal microflora; intestinal microbiota; immunotherapeutic

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01AI088748, N01AI30050, F32AI081497]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R29AI030050, R01AI088748, F32AI081497] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Clostridium difficile is a primary cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea that typically develops when gut microbiota is altered. Conventional treatment for C. difficile infection (CDI) is additional antimicrobial administration, which further disrupts normal intestinal microbiota, often resulting in poor treatment outcomes. Methods. A pregnant dairy cow was repeatedly immunized with recombinant mutants of toxins A and B produced by C. difficile, and the resultant hyperimmune bovine colostrum (HBC) was evaluated for therapeutic efficacy in gnotobiotic piglets with diarrhea due to CDI. Control piglets received nonimmune colostrum. To determine the impact of HBC on gut microbiota, 1 of 2 groups of piglets transplanted with normal human gut microbiota was treated with HBC. Results. Nonimmune colostrum-treated piglets developed moderate to severe diarrhea and colitis. In contrast, HBC-treated piglets had mild or no diarrhea and mild or no colitis. Lyophilization had no detectable impact on HBC efficacy. HBC had no discernible effect on the composition of normal human gut microbiota in the porcine intestinal tract. Conclusions. HBC provides an oral, cost-effective, and safe alternative to antibiotic therapy for CDI. By preserving intestinal microbiota, HBC may be more efficacious than antibiotics. Additional studies are warranted to establish HBC as a viable immunotherapeutic agent for human use against CDI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据