Fibre-rich diet attenuates chemotherapy-related neuroinflammation in mice

The atypical antipsychotics lurasidone and olanzapine exert contrasting effects on the gut microbiome and metabolic function of rats

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Antipsychotics such as olanzapine are associated with significant metabolic dysfunction, attributed to gut microbiome dysbiosis. A recent notion that most psychotropics are detrimental to the gut microbiome has arisen from consistent findings of metabolic adverse effects. However, unlike olanzapine, the metabolic effects of lurasidone are conflicting. Thus, this study investigates the contrasting effects of olanzapine and lurasidone on the gut microbiome to explore the hypothesis of 'gut neutrality' for lurasidone exposure.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Using Sprague-Dawley rats, the effects of olanzapine and lurasidone on the gut microbiome were explored. Faecal and blood samples were collected weekly over a 21-day period to analyse changes to the gut microbiome and related metabolic markers.

KEY RESULTS

Lurasidone triggered no significant weight gain or metabolic alterations, instead positively modulating the gut microbiome through increases in mean operational taxonomical units (OTUs) and alpha diversity. This novel finding suggests an underlying mechanism for lurasidone's metabolic inertia. In contrast, olanzapine triggered a statistically significant decrease in mean OTUs, substantial compositional variation and a depletion in short-chain fatty acid abundance. Microbiome depletion correlated with metabolic dysfunction, producing a 30% increase in weight gain, increased pro-inflammatory cytokine expression, and increased blood glycaemic and triglyceride levels.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Our results challenge the notion that all antipsychotics disrupt the gut microbiome similarly and highlights the potential benefits of gut-neutral antipsychotics, such as lurasidone, in managing metabolic side effects. Further research is warranted to validate these findings in humans to guide personalised pharmacological treatment regimens for schizophrenia.

Role of mucositis in predicting gut microbiota composition in people with cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Disruption of the precious ecosystem of micro-organisms that reside in the gut - the gut microbiota - is rapidly emerging as a key driver of the adverse side effects/toxicities caused by numerous anti-cancer agents. Although the contribution of the gut microbiota to these toxicities is understood with ever increasing precision, the cause of microbial disruption (dysbiosis) remains poorly understood. Here, we discuss current evidence on the cause(s) of dysbiosis after cancer therapy, positioning breakdown of the intestinal mucosa (mucositis) as a central cause.

RECENT FINDINGS

Dysbiosis in people with cancer has historically been attributed to extensive antibiotic use. However, evidence now suggests that certain antibiotics have minimal impacts on the microbiota. Indeed, recent evidence shows that the type of cancer therapy predicts microbiota composition independently of antibiotics. Given most anti-cancer drugs have modest effects on microbes directly, this suggests that their impact on the gut microenvironment, in particular the mucosa, which is highly vulnerable to cytotoxicity, is a likely cause of dysbiosis. Here, we outline evidence that support this hypothesis, and discuss the associated clinical implications/opportunities.

SUMMARY

The concept that mucositis dictates microbiota compositions provides two important implications for clinical practice. Firstly, it reiterates the importance of prioritising the development of novel mucoprotectants that preserve mucosal integrity, and indirectly support microbial stability. Secondly, it provides an opportunity to identify dysbiotic events and associated consequences using readily accessible, minimally invasive biomarkers of mucositis such as plasma citrulline.

Microbiome in Cancer Development and Treatment

Targeting the microbiome, microbiota-derived metabolites, and related pathways represents a significant challenge in oncology. Microbiome analyses have confirmed the negative impact of cancer treatment on gut homeostasis, resulting in acute dysbiosis and severe complications, including massive inflammatory immune response, mucosal barrier disruption, and bacterial translocation across the gut epithelium. Moreover, recent studies revealed the relationship between an imbalance in the gut microbiome and treatment-related toxicity. In this review, we provide current insights into the role of the microbiome in tumor development and the impact of gut and tumor microbiomes on chemo- and immunotherapy efficacy, as well as treatment-induced late effects, including cognitive impairment and cardiotoxicity. As discussed, microbiota modulation via probiotic supplementation and fecal microbiota transplantation represents a new trend in cancer patient care, aiming to increase bacterial diversity, alleviate acute and long-term treatment-induced toxicity, and improve the response to various treatment modalities. However, a more detailed understanding of the complex relationship between the microbiome and host can significantly contribute to integrating a microbiome-based approach into clinical practice. Determination of causal correlations might lead to the identification of clinically relevant diagnostic and prognostic microbial biomarkers. Notably, restoration of intestinal homeostasis could contribute to optimizing treatment efficacy and improving cancer patient outcomes.

Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems (SEDDS) disrupt the gut microbiota and trigger an intestinal inflammatory response in rats

Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems (i.e. SEDDS, SMEDDS and SNEDDS) are widely employed as solubility and bioavailability enhancing formulation strategies for poorly water-soluble drugs. Despite the capacity for SEDDS to effectively facilitate oral drug absorption, tolerability concerns exist due to the capacity for high concentrations of surfactants (typically present within SEDDS) to induce gastrointestinal toxicity and mucosal irritation. With new knowledge surrounding the role of the gut microbiota in modulating intestinal inflammation and mucosal injury, there is a clear need to determine the impact of SEDDS on the gut microbiota. The current study is the first of its kind to demonstrate the detrimental impact of SEDDS on the gut microbiota of Sprague-Dawley rats, following daily oral administration (100 mg/kg) for 21 days. SEDDS comprising a lipid phase (i.e. Type I, II and III formulations according to the Lipid Formulation Classification Scheme) induced significant changes to the composition and diversity of the gut microbiota, evidenced through a reduction in operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and alpha diversity (Shannon's index), along with statistically significant shifts in beta diversity (according to PERMANOVA of multi-dimensional Bray-Curtis plots). Key signatures of gut microbiota dysbiosis correlated with the increased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines within the jejunum, while mucosal injury was characterised by significant reductions in plasma citrulline levels, a validated biomarker of enterocyte mass and mucosal barrier integrity. These findings have potential clinical ramifications for chronically administered drugs that are formulated with SEDDS and stresses the need for further studies that investigate dose-dependent effects of SEDDS on the gastrointestinal microenvironment in a clinical setting.