Next Article in Journal
Does the Use of Local Antibiotics Affect Clinical Outcome of Patients with Fracture-Related Infection?
Previous Article in Journal
Detection of Clones B2-ST131-C2 and A-ST617 in Escherichia coli Producing Both CTX-M-15 and CTX-M-27 from Tunisian Community Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/antibiotics11101331
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Contribution of Symptomatic, Herbal Treatment Options to Antibiotic Stewardship and Microbiotic Health

by
Bernhard Nausch
1,
Claudia B. Bittner
1,
Martina Höller
1,
Dimitri Abramov-Sommariva
1,
Andreas Hiergeist
2 and
André Gessner
2,*
1
Bionorica SE, Research and Development, Kerschensteinerstraße 11-15, 92318 Neumarkt in der Oberpfalz, Germany
2
Institute of Clinical Microbiology and Hygiene, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2022, 11(10), 1331; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11101331
Submission received: 22 August 2022 / Revised: 16 September 2022 / Accepted: 24 September 2022 / Published: 29 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Plant-Derived Antibiotics)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Epithelial surfaces in humans are home to symbiotic microbes (i.e., microbiota) that influence the defensive function against pathogens, depending on the health of the microbiota. Healthy microbiota contribute to the well-being of their host, in general (e.g., via the gut–brain axis), and their respective anatomical site, in particular (e.g., oral, urogenital, skin, or respiratory microbiota). Despite efforts towards a more responsible use of antibiotics, they are often prescribed for uncomplicated, self-limiting infections and can have a substantial negative impact on the gut microbiota. Treatment alternatives, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, may also influence the microbiota; thus, they can have lasting adverse effects. Herbal drugs offer a generally safe treatment option for uncomplicated infections of the urinary or respiratory tract. Additionally, their microbiota preserving properties allow for a more appropriate therapy of uncomplicated infections, without contributing to an increase in antibiotic resistance or disturbing the gut microbiota. Here, herbal treatments may be a more appropriate therapy, with a generally favorable safety profile.

1. Introduction

Epithelial surfaces in humans exhibit a barrier function and are crucial for the defense against pathogens [1]. In addition, they are home to microbiota [2], which, in turn, are part of the epithelial barrier function [1,3]. The study of microbiota has sparked scientific interest in recent years, due to the presumed connection to the general well-being of the body and maintaining local and systemic homeostasis [4,5,6]. Examples of specific, local microbiota are the oral [7], respiratory [8,9,10], skin [11], urogenital [12,13,14], vaginal [15,16], or gastro-intestinal microbiota [4]. When undisturbed and healthy, there is usually a well-balanced and beneficial symbiosis between the microbiota and their host. While the host provides habitat and nutrients for the microbiota, they, in turn, contribute to host homeostasis, since they prevent colonization by pathogens and interact with the innate and adaptive immune system [10,17,18,19,20].
Due to this symbiosis between microbiota and their host, alterations in the microbiota may have potentially beneficial, as well as detrimental, effects [21,22,23,24]. Dysbiosis describes a shift in the composition of microbiota, usually towards more harmful than beneficial bacteria. The impaired homeostasis increases the susceptibility for infection and inflammation. This connection has been shown for the oral microbiota and periodontal diseases and caries [25], gastrointestinal microbiota and various gastrointestinal disorders [20,26,27,28,29], respiratory microbiota of the upper respiratory tract and infections thereof [30], and urogenital microbiota and urogenital infections, as well as the formation of kidney stones [16,31,32].
The gut microbiome, although locally confined, can affect the entire body via gut–brain signaling [33]. The gut microbiome plays an important role, regarding proper functioning of the immune system [34], and changes of the gut microbiome may promote the manifestation of allergies [35] and auto-immune diseases [36]. Moreover, the gut microbiome can influence brain development [37], and changes of the gut microbiome are associated with the occurrence of disorders, such as depression [38], Alzheimer’s disease [39], and schizophrenia [40,41]. A disturbed gut microbiome may contribute to chronic, low-grade systemic inflammation, thus even promoting age-related diseases (inflammaging) [2,37,42,43]. Thus, the gut microbiome is considered one of the most important microbiota that can impact the entire body and its physiology.

2. Antibiotic Treatment of Infections: Inappropriate Use and Risks

Although antibiotics are known to be beneficial for the treatment of bacterial infections only, they are often prematurely prescribed, regardless of whether an infection is of bacterial or viral origin [44,45]. The inappropriate use of antibiotics (e.g., for a viral infection) will provide no great beneficial effect, but can be harmful to the patient, as antibiotics impact the microbiota, as well [46]. Even in the case of bacterial infections, for which, in principle, antibiotics are the appropriate treatment, antibiotic treatment is often not required, as many bacterial infections are self-limiting and resolve without treatment. The use of antibiotics can, however, put the patient at risk of adverse effects. For instance, antibiotic use can increase the risk of developing vaginal candidiasis [47].
Further, antibiotics increase the risk for the development of antimicrobial resistance [48,49,50], which globally caused an estimated 1.27 million deaths in 2019 [51]. This is particularly concerning, as there is still a considerable overuse of antibiotics, as an analysis of German outpatient care revealed [52]. Likewise, antibiotics consumption is increasing on a global scale, with low- and middle-income countries converging to levels typically observed in high-income countries. Additionally, a worldwide increase in last-resort compounds has been noted [53]. While the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention found a decrease in the use of some antibiotics, it, nevertheless, noted an increase in various broad-spectrum antibiotics in the community and hospital sectors [54]. Especially in infants and young children, the overuse and misuse of antibiotics and subsequent effects on the microbiota may contribute to the manifestations of diseases later in life [55,56]. Factors for the irrational use of antibiotics are lack of public knowledge and awareness, access to antibiotics without prescription and leftover antibiotics, pharmaceutical promotion, and inadequate medical training, among others [57]. Ultimately, antibiotics jeopardize stable microbiota, which can have a negative impact on health that may be longer lasting than the often self-limiting and uncritical infections they were initially prescribed for.

3. Common Treatment Alternatives to Antibiotics

Antibiotic stewardship, i.e., promoting the responsible and efficient use of antibiotics, is becoming increasingly more common; it has also been addressed in guidelines, such as that from the European Association of Urology (EAU) [58] or World Health Organization (WHO) [59], as well as in various consensus papers and reviews [60,61]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define the goals of antibiotic stewardship as “to improve antibiotic prescribing by clinicians and use by patients so that antibiotics are only prescribed and used when needed; … to ensure that the right drug, dose, and duration are selected when an antibiotic is needed.” (https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/faqs/antibiotic-stewardship.html, accessed on 7 July 2022).
Accordingly, nowadays, antibiotic treatment is rarely recommended for uncomplicated respiratory infections, which are often of viral origin [62,63]. In contrast, antibiotic treatment is often still used in clinical routine for other common infections, such as urinary tract infections (UTI) [64,65]. Yet, for uncomplicated cases of UTI, symptomatic treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered a viable treatment alternative to antibiotics [66,67,68,69]. As with any drug, NSAIDs can have adverse effects [70]; although they target inflammation, not bacteria, NSAIDs can impact the gut microbiota and, in turn, negatively affect the outcome of NSAID-therapy itself [71,72].
In addition, many minor and uncomplicated infections are self-limiting and do only require symptomatic treatment. Supporting the natural recovery, by e.g., resting, proper hydration, and avoidance of potential stressors (e.g., alcohol or nicotine), may often be sufficient to overcome uncomplicated infections [73]. However, safer medical treatments, compared to antibiotics or NSAIDs, are still desirable, in order to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life.

4. Herbal Drugs: A Safe Treatment Alternative for Uncomplicated Infections

Medicinal products based on herbal drugs or extracts thereof generally exhibit a positive benefit-risk-ratio and are a viable treatment alternative for uncomplicated infections [74]. Unlike antibiotics or NSAIDs, herbal treatment options usually do not target specific pathogens or signaling pathways. Rather, their efficacy is based on a multi-targeted approach [75,76,77]. For many common and recurring infections, such as urogenital infections [78,79] or infections of the upper and lower respiratory tract [80,81], effective and safe herbal treatment options are available. For instance, herbal treatment options for uncomplicated UTI include Centaurii herba, Levistici radix, and Rosmarini folium (Canephron®, Bio-norica SE, Neumarkt in der Oberpfalz, Germany) [82], Tropaeoli herba and Armoraciae radix (Angocin®, Repha GmbH, Langenhagen, Germany) [83,84], Ononidis radix, Orthosiphonis folium, and Solidaginis herba (Aqualibra®, MEDICE Arzneimittel Pütter GmbH & Co. KG, Iserlohn, Germany) [85], Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (e.g., Cystinol®, Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co. KG, Salzgitter, Germany) [86], and cranberry [87]. Likewise, for rhinosinusitis, various herbal medicinal products exist, such as Sambuci flos, Gentianae radix, Primulae flos, Rumicis herba, and Verbenae herba (Sinupret®, Bionorica SE, Germany) [88,89], cineole (e.g., Soledum®, Cassella-med GmbH & Co. KG, Köln, Germany) [90], myrtol (Gelomyrtol®, G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG, Hohenlockstedt, Germany) [91], and Pelargonium sidoides (Umckaloabo®, Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG, Karlsruhe, Germany) [92,93,94]. Herbal treatment options for acute bronchitis/acute cough include Thymi herba and Primulae radix or Thymi herba and Hederae folium (Bronchipret®, Bionorica SE, Germany) [95,96], Pelargonium sidoides [92,97,98,99], cineole [100], myrtol [101,102], and Hederae folium monopreparations (Prospan®, Engelhard Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG, Niederdorfelden, Germany) [103,104,105]. Importantly, the studies with these products demonstrate that herbal treatment can be effective in reducing symptoms, and, thereby, patient use of antibiotics, while providing generally favorable safety profiles. Moreover, these studies have led to the acknowledgement of herbal medicinal products in guidelines for rhinosinusitis, acute and chronic cough [60,106,107,108], and urinary infections as viable and adequate therapy options [58,109]. In addition, an independent institute (Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care), (IQWiG) attests to Canephron® as having a beneficial effect in cases of recurrent cystitis [110].

5. Biologically Active Compounds of Herbal Preparations

By nature, herbal medicinal products are multicomponent mixtures and contain many, often unidentified, active substances. However, some constituents with relevant pharmacological activity have been identified. For example, in vitro studies demonstrated the antiviral activity of various constituents of medicinal plants, e.g., quercetin, carvacrol, or theaflavins [111], as well as antibacterial activity of flavonoids [112], isothiocyanides [113], hydroquinone, and umbelliferone [114].
Anti-inflammatory activity of flavonoids, such as apigenin, quercetin, and kaempferol, as well as that of a variety of other plant constituents, e.g., ursolic acid, betulinic acid, and resveratrol, have been described extensively [115,116,117].
Plants that contain these or other compounds with antiviral, antibacterial, or anti-inflammatory activity promise to be effective treatment options for common and uncomplicated infectious diseases.

6. Treatment of Respiratory Infections with Herbal Medicinal Products: Bronchipret® and Sinupret®

Infections of the upper and lower respiratory tract (i.e., (rhino-)sinusitis and bronchitis), are considered some of the most common and widespread infections. While antibiotic treatment is common, respiratory infections also respond well to treatment with herbal combinations. A recent review affirmed the growing body of evidence for the effectiveness of herbal products as a treatment of acute rhinosinusitis [118], which is in line with findings from a real-world study that discussed herbal products as a viable alternative to antibiotics [119]. In addition, guidelines for acute and chronic cough suggest herbal products for uncomplicated respiratory infections, in combination with delayed prescription of antibiotics, i.e., patients could receive prescriptions for antibiotics with no further consultation, in case an infection persists, ultimately resulting in notably fewer patients who will take antibiotics, compared to a prescription at the first consultation [108]. Avoiding antibiotics, thus preserving the microbiota, is in line with antibiotic stewardship and beneficial for patients, since the microbiota play a protective role in host defense against respiratory infections [120]. This topic is also of particular importance with regard to children, for whom the effects of overuse and misuse of antibiotics can contribute to the manifestations of diseases later in life [55,56]. Respiratory infections are particularly common in infants and children, with children often suffering from multiple episodes per year [121]. Simultaneously, respiratory infections are associated with frequent medical consultations and an overuse of antibiotics [122]. Moreover, antibiotic use and the frequency of visits are correlated [123]. There is evidence that programs on communication strategies and antibiotic prescribing are successful in decreasing visits [124]. However, these data also emphasize the need for safer alternatives for children, such as herbal treatment.
Two examples of herbal combinations are thyme and ivy or thyme and primrose (as in Bronchipret®, Bionorica SE, Germany) for acute bronchitis [95,96] or cowslip, yellow gentian, black elder, common sorrel, and vervain (as in Sinupret® extract, Bionorica SE, Germany) for paranasal sinus infections/rhinosinusitis [88,89].
The efficacy of the thyme-based product Bronchipret® was demonstrated in two prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials: one with 361 patients who received an 11-day treatment with Bronchipret® syrup (Bionorica SE, Germany, 5.4 mL, 3 times a day, n = 182) or placebo (n = 179), and one with 361 patients who received an 11-day treatment with Bronchipret® film-coated tablets (Bionorica SE, Germany, 1 tablet, 3 times a day, n = 183) or placebo (n = 178). Both trials showed a significantly faster reduction of coughing fits, in comparison to the placebo, as well as a faster regression of bronchitis-related symptoms and higher responder rates with the herbal product [95,96]. In addition to anti-inflammatory and -viral [125] effects, the thyme-ivy/thyme-primula combinations also showed mucus-regulatory effects in acute and chronic bronchitis and bronchoalveolitis [126,127,128].
Similar effects were observed for the respective herbal combinations (Sinupret®, Bio-norica SE, Germany) for the treatment of (rhino-)sinusitis, which also exhibited anti-inflammatory and -viral [129] effects and improved mucociliary clearance [130,131,132,133,134]. The efficacy and safety of the herbal medicinal product Sinupret® extract (Bionorica SE, Germany) was shown in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 386 patients who received either Sinupret® extract (Bionorica SE, Germany, 1 tablet 3 times a day) or matched placebo: the treatment resulted in significant, clinically relevant differences in the major symptom score (MSS), in favor of the herbal product, thus leading to two days earlier symptom relief, better quality of life, and higher responder rates, compared to the placebo [88].

7. Preservation of the Gut Microbiome under BNO 2811 and BNO 1011: Results of a Mouse Model

While herbal medical products are assumed to preserve the gut microbiome, the impact on the microbiome has, to date, not been well-studied for respiratory infections. In the following, we present some initial, thus far unpublished, preclinical data for BNO 2811 (mixture of ethanolic dry extract of Thymi herba and dry extract of Primulae radix) and BNO 1011 (ethanolic dry extract of a mixture of Gentianae radix, Primulae flos, Rumicis herba, Sambuci flos, and Verbenae herba), which are the basis for Bronchipret® film-coated tablets and Sinupret® extract (Bionorica SE, Germany).
To analyze the impact of these herbal combinations and first-line antibiotics for the treatment of respiratory infections on the gut microbiome, compositions of the fecal microbiome from mice were analyzed via next-generation sequencing (NGS) of bacterial 16S rRNA genes using a quality-controlled workflow [135]. The mice received either daily oral doses of the antibiotics amoxicillin/ clavulanic acid or moxifloxacin or the herbal extracts BNO 2811 (one-fold equivalent of the recommended daily human dose of Bronchipret® film-coated tablets, Bionorica SE, Germany) or BNO 1011 (one-fold equivalent of the recommended daily human dose of Sinupret® extract, Bionorica SE, Germany). An additional group was fed with water, which served as a substance-free vehicle/control group. Fecal samples from four animals per treatment arm were taken after seven days of treatment (Figure 1).
NGS-based analyses of the microbiome revealed a significant alteration of the bacterial composition during antibiotic treatment, while the microbiome of mice that had been fed with herbal extracts was very similar to substance-free vehicle controls (Figure 1A,B). The most significant impact was observed after the gavage of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, which led to a marked loss of bacterial diversity, accompanied with the domination of only few genera (Enterobacteriaceae species, Escherichia-Shigella, Parabacteroids, Robinsoniella). To further assess the long-term effects on the intestinal microbiome, the treatment of mice with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was discontinued, and the fecal microbiome was again analyzed after an additional 11 weeks (d84). Microbial compositions again changed, but did not return to baseline after this prolonged period. In addition, potentially beneficial species, such as Akkermansia muciniphila, did not reappear after treatment termination. Thus, antibiotic treatment led to long-lasting changes of the bacterial microbiome.

8. Treatment of Urogenital Infections with an Herbal Medicinal Product: Canephron®

To illustrate an effective and safe herbal treatment option for uncomplicated UTIs, the herbal medicinal product Canephron® (Bionorica SE, Germany), which contains the phytocombination BNO 2103 of Rosmarini folium, Centaurii herba, and Levistici radix as active pharmaceutical ingredient, is discussed.
The efficacy of Canephron® N (BNO 1045, Bionorica SE, Germany) has been shown in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial [82]. In this trial, 325 women were randomized to treatment with BNO 1045, and 334 women were randomized to antibiotic treatment with fosfomycin trometamol. The results demonstrate the non-inferiority of BNO 1045 versus antibiotic treatment in acute lower uncomplicated UTI, with regard to the need of additional antibiotic treatment.
In addition to efficacy, the effectiveness under real-world conditions has been shown in a recently published study based on a real-world database analysis reviewing over 160,000 cases of UTI treatment with either antibiotics or Canephron® (Bionorica SE, Germany) [136]. The findings of this study confirm the results of the above-mentioned clinical trial [82]. The percentage of patients needing additional antibiotics from day 1 to 30 was almost identical for both groups. In addition, the probability of sporadic or frequent recurrent UTI episodes was lower following treatment with the herbal medicinal product. Surprisingly, the need for additional antibiotic treatment from day 31 to 356 was higher in the group of patients who received antibiotics as an initial treatment of uncomplicated UTI [136].
A potential explanation for this may be the altering impact of antibiotics on specific microbiota. Healthy gut, vaginal, and urinary microbiota are thought to protect from urinary infections; accordingly, dysbiosis is implicated in the etiology of UTIs [137]. Herbal medicinal products, on the other hand, are thought to preserve the microbiota and, thus, its protective role. The therapeutic effect of herbal treatments, which are multi-component mixtures with typically more than one mode of action, can be explained by therapeutic effects other than antibiotic.

9. Preservation of the Gut Microbiome under BNO 2103: Results in a Mouse Model

The herbal combination BNO 2103 is known to be efficacious for treating urogenital infections in humans by impeding the adhesion of pathogens in the urogenital tract, as well as having spasmolytic, diuretic, anti-oxidative, anti-inflammatory, and anti-nociceptive effects that contribute to the successful treatment [82,136,138,139,140,141,142,143]. Further, in contrast to antibiotics and NSAIDs, herbal medical products are thought to preserve the gut microbiome. However, the impact of the treatment on the gut microbiome has not yet been thoroughly investigated preclinically.
In 2017, Naber and colleagues published preliminary findings on the effects of this herbal combination on the gut microbiome in mice [144]. To further test the impact of the treatment on the gut microbiome, stool samples from mice were analyzed by next-generation sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes using a quality-controlled workflow [135]. The mice received daily oral doses for 7 days of the antibiotic nitrofurantoin, water (as a substance-free vehicle; control group), phytocombination BNO 2103, or a single dose of the antibiotic fosfomycin on day 1. The dosages of BNO 2103 were 65 and 1333 mg/kg, which is equivalent to one- and twenty-fold the recommended human dosage of Cane-phron® (Bionorica SE, Germany). Each arm of the study comprised four animals, and stool samples collected prior to treatment, on day 2 (for fosfomycin-treated mice) or 7 (remaining groups) were analyzed. All mice were handled, and the experiments were conducted, with the approval of, and in compliance with, the institutional guidelines and respective authorities (District Government of Lower Franconia).
The sequencing results revealed considerable shifts in the composition of the gut microbiome under treatment with nitrofurantoin. The changes were more distinct in the fosfomycin-arm of the experiment: with just a single dose, some bacterial families had completely disappeared from the gut microbiome, and they had not recovered during the following days without treatment. The phytotherapeutically-treated mice displayed a mostly unaltered diversity of gut bacteria, similar to that of the control group of mice receiving (substance-free) water. Even when receiving the 20-fold equivalent of the recommended human dosage, the gut microbiome of the mice was hardly altered (Figure 2A,B). These findings support the microbiota-sparing effects of BNO 2103 and contribute to the existing body of evidence regarding the favorable safety profile of the phytocombination.

10. Future and Prospects for Application

The overuse and misuse of antibiotics remains a challenge. Antibiotics can induce harmful shifts in the microbiota, with consequent negative effects on health that may last longer or be more severe than the initially treated infection itself [46]. When facing self-limiting and uncomplicated infections, antibiotics can be considered an overtreatment; when used for viral infections, they are entirely inappropriate [44,45]. Especially in infants and young children, the inappropriate use of antibiotics can be detrimental, as the subsequent effects of antibiotics on the microbiota can contribute to the manifestation of diseases later in life [55,56]. Additionally, for minor infections, the frequent medical consultation that is also associated with higher antibiotic use can divert resources from the care of potentially more serious conditions [122,123].
A further problem of the overuse and misuse of antibiotics is the increased risk for the development of antimicrobial resistance [48,49,50], which caused an estimated 1.27 million deaths worldwide in 2019 [51].
While awareness of antibiotic stewardship is growing, generating a more widespread understanding for the responsible use of antibiotics remains important, in order to reduce the risk of adverse effects and antibiotic resistances, but also to promote a more conscious treatment choice for infections [145].
Treatment alternatives, such as NSAIDs, do not contribute to antibiotic resistance, but can still impact the microbiota. This, in turn, may introduce other impairments, despite resolving symptoms of the initial infection. As our understanding of the microbiota and its association to the general well-being and resilience towards diseases has increased, it has become apparent that the preservation of the microbiota must be considered when choosing an appropriate therapy for infections.
It has been demonstrated that relapse rates were lower with a phytocombination than with antibiotics in UTI [136]; by stabilizing the urogenital and intestinal microbiota, the natural immune response can, ultimately, also be strengthened [146]. Herbal extracts can be alternatives to antibiotics and NSAIDs for the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital and respiratory infections. Importantly, data show that herbal medicinal products can provide a comparable efficacy to antibiotic and NSAID treatment for UTIs and offer a generally favorable safety profile [82,95,96]. One reason for this may be that herbal treatments do not impact the gut microbiome, as shown in a mouse model for BNO 1011, 2811, and 2103 [135]. However, herbal medicinal products cannot replace antibiotics in all instances; in cases of uncomplicated infections, delayed prescription of antibiotics, in favor of starting treatment with herbal medicinal products, may be useful for reducing the use of antibiotics [147,148]. It is crucial to increase public knowledge and awareness, as well as provide appropriate medical training and communication strategies, in order to prevent overuse and misuse of antibiotics, especially when alternatives are available [57,124]. Overall, this review aims to emphasize the contribution of herbal preparations to antibiotic stewardship with low risk of negative impact on patients’ microbiota and well-being.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: B.N., C.B.B., M.H., D.A.-S. and A.G.; methodology, (literature search): B.N., C.B.B. and M.H.; experimental: A.G., A.H. and B.N.; data analysis: A.H. and A.G.; investigation (experimental): A.H. and A.G.; writing (original draft preparation, review, and editing): all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research and article processing charges were funded by Bionorica SE and the Bavarian Ministry of Science and the Arts, in the framework of the Bavarian Research Network “New Strategies Against Multi-Resistant Pathogens by Means of Digital Networking-bayresq.net”, Förderkennzeichen: Kap. 1528 TG 83.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available, due to data ownership by Bionorica SE.

Acknowledgments

Co. medical® (Berlin) for medical writing.

Conflicts of Interest

B Nausch, CB Bittner, M Höller, and D Abramov-Sommariva are employees of Bionorica SE. A. Gessner receives consultancy fees from Bionorica SE.

References

  1. Moens, E.; Veldhoen, M. Epithelial barrier biology: Good fences make good neighbours. Immunology 2011, 135, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Santoro, A.; Zhao, J.; Wu, L.; Carru, C.; Biagi, E.; Franceschi, C. Microbiomes other than the gut: Inflammaging and age-related diseases. Semin. Immunopathol. 2020, 42, 589–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Barbara, G.; Barbaro, M.R.; Fuschi, D.; Palombo, M.; Falangone, F.; Cremon, C.; Marasco, G.; Stanghellini, V. Inflammatory and microbiota-related regulation of the intestinal epithelial barrier. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 718356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Vaga, S.; Lee, S.; Ji, B.; Andreasson, A.; Talley, N.J.; Agréus, L.; Bidkhori, G.; Kovatcheva-Datchary, P.; Park, J.; Lee, D.; et al. Compositional and functional differences of the mucosal microbiota along the intestine of healthy individuals. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 14977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Honda, K.; Littman, D.R. The microbiota in adaptive immune homeostasis and disease. Nature 2016, 535, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hooper, L.V.; Macpherson, A.J. Immune adaptations that maintain homeostasis with the intestinal microbiota. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2010, 10, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Krishnan, K.; Chen, T.; Paster, B.J. A practical guide to the oral microbiome and its relation to health and disease. Oral Dis. 2017, 23, 276–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bomar, L.; Brugger, S.D.; Lemon, K.P. Bacterial microbiota of the nasal passages across the span of human life. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2018, 41, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dickson, R.P.; Erb-Downward, J.R.; Martinez, F.J.; Huffnagle, G.B. The Microbiome and the Respiratory Tract. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2016, 78, 481–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Man, W.H.; de Steenhuijsen Piters, W.A.; Bogaert, D. The microbiota of the respiratory tract: Gatekeeper to respiratory health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Grice, E.A.; Segre, J.A. The skin microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 9, 244–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Jones-Freeman, B.; Chonwerawong, M.; Marcelino, V.R.; Deshpande, A.V.; Forster, S.C.; Starkey, M.R. The microbiome and host mucosal interactions in urinary tract diseases. Mucosal Immunol. 2021, 14, 779–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Agostinis, C.; Mangogna, A.; Bossi, F.; Ricci, G.; Kishore, U.; Bulla, R. Uterine Immunity and Microbiota: A Shifting Paradigm. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Amabebe, E.; Anumba, D.O.C. The Vaginal Microenvironment: The Physiologic Role of Lactobacilli. Front. Med. 2018, 5, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gottschick, C.; Deng, Z.L.; Vital, M.; Masur, C.; Abels, C.; Pieper, D.H.; Rohde, M.; Mendling, W.; Wagner-Dobler, I. Treatment of biofilms in bacterial vaginosis by an amphoteric tenside pessary-clinical study and microbiota analysis. Microbiome 2017, 5, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gottschick, C.; Deng, Z.L.; Vital, M.; Masur, C.; Abels, C.; Pieper, D.H.; Wagner-Döbler, I. The urinary microbiota of men and women and its changes in women during bacterial vaginosis and antibiotic treatment. Microbiome 2017, 5, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pickard, J.M.; Zeng, M.Y.; Caruso, R.; Núñez, G. Gut microbiota: Role in pathogen colonization, immune responses, and inflammatory disease. Immunol. Rev. 2017, 279, 70–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Takiishi, T.; Fenero, C.I.M.; Câmara, N.O.S. Intestinal barrier and gut microbiota: Shaping our immune responses throughout life. Tissue Barriers 2017, 5, e1373208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, S.; Covington, A.; Pamer, E.G. The intestinal microbiota: Antibiotics, colonization resistance, and enteric pathogens. Immunol. Rev. 2017, 279, 90–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ducarmon, Q.R.; Zwittink, R.D.; Hornung, B.V.H.; van Schaik, W.; Young, V.B.; Kuijper, E.J. Gut Microbiota and Colonization Resistance against Bacterial Enteric Infection. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2019, 83, e00007-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Becattini, S.; Taur, Y.; Pamer, E.G. Antibiotic-Induced Changes in the Intestinal Microbiota and Disease. Trends Mol. Med. 2016, 22, 458–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kim, H.; Sitarik, A.R.; Woodcroft, K.; Johnson, C.C.; Zoratti, E. Birth Mode, Breastfeeding, Pet Exposure, and Antibiotic Use: Associations with the Gut Microbiome and Sensitization in Children. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 2019, 19, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Raplee, I.; Walker, L.; Xu, L.; Surathu, A.; Chockalingam, A.; Stewart, S.; Han, X.; Rouse, R.; Li, Z. Emergence of nosocomial associated opportunistic pathogens in the gut microbiome after antibiotic treatment. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2021, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Xu, L.; Surathu, A.; Raplee, I.; Chockalingam, A.; Stewart, S.; Walker, L.; Sacks, L.; Patel, V.; Li, Z.; Rouse, R. The effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome: A metagenomics analysis of microbial shift and gut antibiotic resistance in antibiotic treated mice. BMC Genom. 2020, 21, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Costalonga, M.; Herzberg, M.C. The oral microbiome and the immunobiology of periodontal disease and caries. Immunol. Lett. 2014, 162 Pt A, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schulz, C.; Schütte, K.; Mayerle, J.; Malfertheiner, P. The role of the gastric bacterial microbiome in gastric cancer: Helicobacter pylori and beyond. Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2019, 12, 1756284819894062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Khan, I.; Ullah, N.; Zha, L.; Bai, Y.; Khan, A.; Zhao, T.; Che, T.; Zhang, C. Alteration of Gut Microbiota in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): Cause or Consequence? IBD Treatment Targeting the Gut Microbiome. Pathogens 2019, 8, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Contijoch, E.J.; Britton, G.J.; Yang, C.; Mogno, I.; Li, Z.; Ng, R.; Llewellyn, S.R.; Hira, S.; Johnson, C.; Rabinowitz, K.M.; et al. Gut microbiota density influences host physiology and is shaped by host and microbial factors. Elife 2019, 8, e40553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Saus, E.; Iraola-Guzmán, S.; Willis, J.R.; Brunet-Vega, A.; Gabaldón, T. Microbiome and colorectal cancer: Roles in carcinogenesis and clinical potential. Mol. Asp. Med. 2019, 69, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. de Steenhuijsen Piters, W.A.; Sanders, E.A.; Bogaert, D. The role of the local microbial ecosystem in respiratory health and disease. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Stapleton, A.E. The Vaginal Microbiota and Urinary Tract Infection. Microbiol. Spectr. 2016, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mehta, M.; Goldfarb, D.S.; Nazzal, L. The role of the microbiome in kidney stone formation. Int. J. Surg. 2016, 36 Pt D, 607–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mohajeri, M.H.; Brummer, R.J.M.; Rastall, R.A.; Weersma, R.K.; Harmsen, H.J.M.; Faas, M.; Eggersdorfer, M. The role of the microbiome for human health: From basic science to clinical applications. Eur. J. Nutr. 2018, 57 (Suppl. S1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cheng, H.Y.; Ning, M.X.; Chen, D.K.; Ma, W.T. Interactions Between the Gut Microbiota and the Host Innate Immune Response Against Pathogens. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Fujimura, K.E.; Lynch, S.V. Microbiota in allergy and asthma and the emerging relationship with the gut microbiome. Cell Host Microbe 2015, 17, 592–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. De Luca, F.; Shoenfeld, Y. The microbiome in autoimmune diseases. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2019, 195, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dinan, T.G.; Cryan, J.F. Gut instincts: Microbiota as a key regulator of brain development, ageing and neurodegeneration. J. Physiol. 2017, 595, 489–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lach, G.; Schellekens, H.; Dinan, T.G.; Cryan, J.F. Anxiety, Depression, and the Microbiome: A Role for Gut Peptides. Neurotherapeutics 2018, 15, 36–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Angelucci, F.; Cechova, K.; Amlerova, J.; Hort, J. Antibiotics, gut microbiota, and Alzheimer’s disease. J. Neuroinflamm. 2019, 16, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dickerson, F.; Severance, E.; Yolken, R. The microbiome, immunity, and schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Brain Behav. Immun. 2017, 62, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Agorastos, A.; Bozikas, V.P. Gut microbiome and adaptive immunity in schizophrenia. Psychiatriki 2019, 30, 189–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Wu, L.; Zeng, T.; Deligios, M.; Milanesi, L.; Langille, M.G.I.; Zinellu, A.; Rubino, S.; Carru, C.; Kelvin, D.J. Age-Related Variation of Bacterial and Fungal Communities in Different Body Habitats across the Young, Elderly, and Centenarians in Sardinia. Msphere 2020, 5, e00558-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Bosco, N.; Noti, M. The aging gut microbiome and its impact on host immunity. Genes Immun. 2021, 22, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pouwels, K.B.; Hopkins, S.; Llewelyn, M.J.; Walker, A.S.; McNulty, C.A.; Robotham, J.V. Duration of antibiotic treatment for common infections in English primary care: Cross sectional analysis and comparison with guidelines. BMJ 2019, 364, l440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. O’Connor, R.; O’Doherty, J.; O’Regan, A.; Dunne, C. Antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTI) in primary care; what factors affect prescribing and why is it important? A narrative review. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 187, 969–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lange, K.; Buerger, M.; Stallmach, A.; Bruns, T. Effects of antibiotics on gut microbiota. Dig. Dis. 2016, 34, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wilton, L.; Kollarova, M.; Heeley, E.; Shakir, S. Relative risk of vaginal candidiasis after use of antibiotics compared with antidepressants in women. Drug Saf. 2003, 26, 589–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Davies, J.; Davies, D. Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2010, 74, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. De Oliveira, D.M.P.; Forde, B.M.; Kidd, T.J.; Harris, P.N.A.; Schembri, M.A.; Beatson, S.A.; Paterson, D.L.; Walker, M.J. Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2020, 33, e00181-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Crofts, T.S.; Gasparrini, A.J.; Dantas, G. Next-generation approaches to understand and combat the antibiotic resistome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 422–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Murray, C.J.L.; Ikuta, K.S.; Sharara, F.; Swetschinski, L.; Robles Aguilar, G.; Gray, A.; Han, C.; Bisignano, C.; Rao, P.; Wool, E.; et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. Lancet 2022, 399, 629–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zweigner, J.; Meyer, E.; Gastmeier, P.; Schwab, F. Rate of antibiotic prescriptions in German outpatient care-are the guidelines followed or are they still exceeded? GMS Hyg. Infect. Control. 2018, 13, Doc04. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Klein, E.Y.; Van Boeckel, T.P.; Martinez, E.M.; Pant, S.; Gandra, S.; Levin, S.A.; Goossens, H.; Laxminarayan, R. Global increase and geographic convergence in antibiotic consumption between 2000 and 2015. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E3463–E3470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Antimicrobial Consumption in the EU/EEA (ESAC-Net)-Annual Epidemiological Report 2020; ECDC: Stockholm, Sweden, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  55. Shekhar, S.; Petersen, F.C. The Dark Side of Antibiotics: Adverse Effects on the Infant Immune Defense Against Infection. Front. Pediatr. 2020, 8, 544460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Neuman, H.; Forsythe, P.; Uzan, A.; Avni, O.; Koren, O. Antibiotics in early life: Dysbiosis and the damage done. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2018, 42, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Machowska, A.; Lundborg, C.S. Drivers of irrational use of antibiotics in Europe. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 16, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bonkat, G.; Bartoletti, R.; Bruyere, F.; Cai, T.; Geerlings, S.E.; Köves, B.; Schubert, S.; Pilaz, A.; Veeratterapillay, R.; Wagenlehner, F. EAU guidelines on urological infections 2022. In European Association of Urology Guidelines; EAU Guidelines Office: Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  59. World Health Organization. Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions: A Practical Guide; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  60. Fokkens, W.J.; Lund, V.J.; Hopkins, C.; Hellings, P.W.; Kern, R.; Reitsma, S.; Toppila-Salmi, S.; Bernal-Sprekelsen, M.; Mullol, J.; Alobid, I.; et al. European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020. Rhinology 2020, 58 (Suppl. S29), 1–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Baur, D.; Gladstone, B.P.; Burkert, F.; Carrara, E.; Foschi, F.; Döbele, S.; Tacconelli, E. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 990–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Leis, J.A.; Born, K.B.; Theriault, G.; Ostrow, O.; Grill, A.; Johnston, K.B. Using antibiotics wisely for respiratory tract infection in the era of COVID-19. BMJ 2020, 371, m4125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Harris, A.M.; Hicks, L.A.; Qaseem, A. Appropriate Antibiotic Use for Acute Respiratory Tract Infection in Adults: Advice for High-Value Care From the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ann. Intern. Med. 2016, 164, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Falagas, M.E.; Kotsantis, I.K.; Vouloumanou, E.K.; Rafailidis, P.I. Antibiotics versus placebo in the treatment of women with uncomplicated cystitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Infect. 2009, 58, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Tan, C.W.; Chlebicki, M.P. Urinary tract infections in adults. Singap. Med. J. 2016, 57, 485–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Bleidorn, J.; Gágyor, I.; Kochen, M.M.; Wegscheider, K.; Hummers-Pradier, E. Symptomatic treatment (ibuprofen) or antibiotics (ciprofloxacin) for uncomplicated urinary tract infection?—Results of a randomized controlled pilot trial. BMC Med. 2010, 8, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Vik, I.; Bollestad, M.; Grude, N.; Bærheim, A.; Damsgaard, E.; Neumark, T.; Bjerrum, L.; Cordoba, G.; Olsen, I.C.; Lindbæk, M. Ibuprofen versus pivmecillinam for uncomplicated urinary tract infection in women—A double-blind, randomized non-inferiority trial. PLoS Med. 2018, 15, e1002569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kronenberg, A.; Butikofer, L.; Odutayo, A.; Muhlemann, K.; da Costa, B.R.; Battaglia, M.; Meli, D.N.; Frey, P.; Limacher, A.; Reichenbach, S.; et al. Symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections in the ambulatory setting: Randomised, double blind trial. BMJ 2017, 359, j4784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gágyor, I.; Bleidorn, J.; Kochen, M.M.; Schmiemann, G.; Wegscheider, K.; Hummers-Pradier, E. Ibuprofen versus fosfomycin for uncomplicated urinary tract infection in women: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2015, 351, h6544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bjarnason, I.; Scarpignato, C.; Holmgren, E.; Olszewski, M.; Rainsford, K.D.; Lanas, A. Mechanisms of Damage to the Gastrointestinal Tract From Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. Gastroenterology 2018, 154, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rogers, M.A.M.; Aronoff, D.M. The influence of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the gut microbiome. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 178.e1–178.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Maseda, D.; Ricciotti, E. NSAID-gut microbiota interactions. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lasek, R.; Adam, D.; Barker, M. Empfehlungen zur Therapie Akuter Atemwegsinfektionen und der Ambulant Erworbenen Pneumonie (3. Auflage). Arzneiverordnung in der Praxis Band 40 Sonderheft 1 (Therapie Empfehlungen); Arzneimittelkommission der Deutschen Ärzteschaft (AkdÄ): Berlin, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  74. Lee, J.Y.; Jun, S.A.; Hong, S.S.; Ahn, Y.C.; Lee, D.S.; Son, C.G. Systematic Review of Adverse Effects from Herbal Drugs Reported in Randomized Controlled Trials. Phytother. Res. 2016, 30, 1412–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wagner, H. Synergy research: Approaching a new generation of phytopharmaceuticals. Fitoterapia 2011, 82, 34–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kim, K.S.; Lim, D.J.; Yang, H.J.; Choi, E.K.; Shin, M.H.; Ahn, K.S.; Jung, S.H.; Um, J.Y.; Jung, H.J.; Lee, J.H.; et al. The multi-targeted effects of Chrysanthemum herb extract against Escherichia coli O157:H7. Phytother. Res. 2013, 27, 1398–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Amparo, T.R.; Seibert, J.B.; Vieira, P.M.A.; Teixeira, L.F.M.; Santos, O.; de Souza, G.H.B. Herbal medicines to the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections: Advantages of the multi-targets action. Phytother. Res. 2020, 34, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Ghouri, F.; Hollywood, A.; Ryan, K. A systematic review of non-antibiotic measures for the prevention of urinary tract infections in pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018, 18, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Wawrysiuk, S.; Naber, K.; Rechberger, T.; Miotla, P. Prevention and treatment of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections in the era of increasing antimicrobial resistance-non-antibiotic approaches: A systemic review. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2019, 300, 821–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Palm, J.; Steiner, I.; Abramov-Sommariva, D.; Ammendola, A.; Mitzenheim, S.; Steindl, H.; Wonnemann, M.; Bachert, C. Assessment of efficacy and safety of the herbal medicinal product BNO 1016 in chronic rhinosinusitis. Rhinology 2017, 55, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kardos, P.; Bittner, C.B.; Seibel, J.; Abramov-Sommariva, D.; Birring, S.S. Effectiveness and tolerability of the thyme/ivy herbal fluid extract BNO 1200 for the treatment of acute cough: An observational pharmacy-based study. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2021, 37, 1837–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wagenlehner, F.M.; Abramov-Sommariva, D.; Holler, M.; Steindl, H.; Naber, K.G. Non-Antibiotic Herbal Therapy (BNO 1045) versus Antibiotic Therapy (Fosfomycin Trometamol) for the Treatment of Acute Lower Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Multicentre, Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial. Urol. Int. 2018, 101, 327–336. [Google Scholar]
  83. Albrecht, U.; Goos, K.H.; Schneider, B. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a herbal medicinal product containing Tropaeoli majoris herba (Nasturtium) and Armoraciae rusticanae radix (Horseradish) for the prophylactic treatment of patients with chronically recurrent lower urinary tract infections. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2007, 23, 2415–2422. [Google Scholar]
  84. Stange, R.; Schneider, B.; Albrecht, U.; Mueller, V.; Schnitker, J.; Michalsen, A. Results of a randomized, prospective, double-dummy, double-blind trial to compare efficacy and safety of a herbal combination containing Tropaeoli majoris herba and Armoraciae rusticanae radix with co-trimoxazole in patients with acute and uncomplicated cystitis. Res. Rep. Urol. 2017, 14, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  85. Vahlensieck, W.; Lorenz, H.; Schumacher-Stimpfl, A.; Fischer, R.; Naber, K.G. Effect of a herbal therapy on clinical symptoms of acute lower uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women: Secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Schindler, G.; Patzak, U.; Brinkhaus, B.; von Nieciecki, A.; Wittig, J.; Krähmer, N.; Glöckl, I.; Veit, M. Urinary excretion and metabolism of arbutin after oral administration of arctostaphylos uvae ursi extract as film-coated tablets and aqueous solution in healthy humans. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2002, 42, 920–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Gbinigie, O.A.; Spencer, E.A.; Heneghan, C.J.; Lee, J.J.; Butler, C.C. Cranberry extract for symptoms of acute, uncomplicated urinary tract infection: A systematic review. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Jund, R.; Mondigler, M.; Steindl, H.; Stammer, H.; Stierna, P.; Bachert, C. Clinical efficacy of a dry extract of five herbal drugs in acute viral rhinosinusitis. Rhinology 2012, 50, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jund, R.; Mondigler, M.; Stammer, H.; Stierna, P.; Bachert, C. Herbal drug BNO 1016 is safe and effective in the treatment of acute viral rhinosinusitis. Acta Otolaryngol. 2015, 135, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kehrl, W.; Sonnemann, U.; Dethlefsen, U. Therapy for acute nonpurulent rhinosinusitis with cineole: Results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Laryngoscope 2004, 114, 738–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Federspil, P.; Wulkow, R.; Zimmermann, T. Wirkung von Myrtol standardisiert* bei der Therapie der akuten Sinusitis-Ergebnisse einer doppelblinden, randomisierten Multicenterstudie gegen Plazebo. Laryngorhinootologie 1997, 76, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Timmer, A.; Günther, J.; Motschall, E.; Rücker, G.; Antes, G.; Kern, W.V. Pelargonium sidoides extract for treating acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013, CD006323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bachert, C.; Schapowal, A.; Funk, P.; Kieser, M. Treatment of acute rhinosinusitis with the preparation from Pelargonium sidoides EPs 7630: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Rhinology 2009, 47, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  94. Perić, A.; Gaćeša, D.; Barać, A.; Sotirović, J.; Perić, A. Herbal drug EPs 7630 versus amoxicillin in patients with uncomplicated acute bacterial rhinosinusitis: A randomized, open-label study. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2020, 129, 969–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kemmerich, B.; Eberhardt, R.; Stammer, H. Efficacy and tolerability of a fluid extract combination of thyme herb and ivy leaves and matched placebo in adults suffering from acute bronchitis with productive cough. A prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Arzneimittelforschung 2006, 56, 652–660. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  96. Kemmerich, B. Evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of dry extracts of thyme herb and primrose root in adults suffering from acute bronchitis with productive cough. A prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre clinical trial. Arzneimittelforschung 2007, 57, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  97. Chuchalin, A.G.; Berman, B.; Lehmacher, W. Treatment of acute bronchitis in adults with a pelargonium sidoides preparation (EPs® 7630): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. EXPLORE 2005, 1, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Matthys, H.; Heger, M. Treatment of acute bronchitis with a liquid herbal drug preparation from Pelargonium sidoides (EPs 7630): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2007, 23, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Matthys, H.; Lizogub, V.G.; Malek, F.A.; Kieser, M. Efficacy and tolerability of EPs 7630 tablets in patients with acute bronchitis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding study with a herbal drug preparation from Pelargonium sidoides. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2010, 26, 1413–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Fischer, J.; Dethlefsen, U. Efficacy of cineole in patients suffering from acute bronchitis: A placebo-controlled double-blind trial. Cough 2013, 9, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Matthys, H.; de Mey, C.; Carls, C.; Ryś, A.; Geib, A.; Wittig, T. Efficacy and tolerability of myrtol standardized in acute bronchitis. A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group clinical trial vs. cefuroxime and ambroxol. Arzneimittelforschung 2000, 50, 700–711. [Google Scholar]
  102. Gillissen, A.; Wittig, T.; Ehmen, M.; Krezdorn, H.; de Mey, C. A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on the efficacy and tolerability of GeloMyrtol® forte in acute bronchitis. Drug Res. 2013, 63, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Schaefer, A.; Kehr, M.S.; Giannetti, B.M.; Bulitta, M.; Staiger, C. A randomized, controlled, double-blind, multi-center trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a liquid containing ivy leaves dry extract (EA 575®) vs. placebo in the treatment of adults with acute cough. Pharmazie 2016, 71, 504–509. [Google Scholar]
  104. Cwientzek, U.; Ottillinger, B.; Arenberger, P. Acute bronchitis therapy with ivy leaves extracts in a two-arm study. A double-blind, randomised study vs. an other ivy leaves extract. Phytomedicine 2011, 18, 1105–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kruttschnitt, E.; Wegener, T.; Zahner, C.; Henzen-Bücking, S. Assessment of the efficacy and safety of ivy leaf (hedera helix) cough syrup compared with acetylcysteine in adults and children with acute bronchitis. Evid.-Based Complementary Altern. Med. 2020, 2020, 1910656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Stuck, B.A.; Beule, A.; Jobst, D.; Klimek, L.; Laudien, M.; Lell, M.; Vogl, T.J.; Popert, U. Guideline for “rhinosinusitis”-long version: S2k guideline of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians and the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. Hno 2018, 66, 38–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Kardos, P.; Dinh, Q.T.; Fuchs, K.H.; Gillissen, A.; Klimek, L.; Koehler, M.; Sitter, H.; Worth, H. German Respiratory Society guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of adults suffering from acute, subacute and chronic cough. Respir. Med. 2020, 170, 105939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Krüger, K.; Holzinger, F.; Trauth, J.; Koch, M.; Heintze, C.; Gehrke-Beck, S. Clinical Practice Guideline: Chronic Cough. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2022. Forthcoming. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. German Society of Urology, D.G.U. Interdisziplinary S3 Guide Line: Epidemiology, Diagnostics, Therapy, Prevention and Management of Uncomplicated, Bacterial, Ambulantly Aquired Urinary Tract Infections in Adult Patients. Long Version 1.1-2, 2017. AWMF Registry Number: 043/044. 2017. Available online: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/043-044l_S3_Harnwegsinfektionen_2017-05.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2022).
  110. Cystitis: Are Herbal Medicinal Products Helpful in Cases of Recurrent Cystitis? [Blasenentzündung: Helfen pflanzliche Mittel bei wiederkehrender Blasenentzündung?, GERMAN], HTA-number: HT20-01, Version 1.0. IQWiG-Berichte. 2022. Available online: https://www.iqwig.de/sich-einbringen/themencheck-medizin-thema-vorschlagen/hta-berichte/ht20-01.html (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  111. Zitterl-Eglseer, K.; Marschik, T. Antiviral Medicinal Plants of Veterinary Importance: A Literature Review. Planta Med. 2020, 86, 1058–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Cushnie, T.P.; Lamb, A.J. Antimicrobial activity of flavonoids. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2005, 26, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Stan, D.; Enciu, A.M.; Mateescu, A.L.; Ion, A.C.; Brezeanu, A.C.; Stan, D.; Tanase, C. Natural Compounds with Antimicrobial and Antiviral Effect and Nanocarriers Used for Their Transportation. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 723233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Cela-Lopez, J.M.; Camacho Roldan, C.J.; Gomez-Lizarraga, G.; Martinez, V. A Natural Alternative Treatment for Urinary Tract Infections: Itxasol(c), the Importance of the Formulation. Molecules 2021, 26, 4564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Dar, K.B.; Bhat, A.H.; Amin, S.; Masood, A.; Zargar, M.A.; Ganie, S.A. Inflammation: A Multidimensional Insight on Natural Anti-Inflammatory Therapeutic Compounds. Curr. Med. Chem. 2016, 23, 3775–3800. [Google Scholar]
  116. Hamalainen, M.; Nieminen, R.; Vuorela, P.; Heinonen, M.; Moilanen, E. Anti-inflammatory effects of flavonoids: Genistein, kaempferol, quercetin, and daidzein inhibit STAT-1 and NF-kappaB activations, whereas flavone, isorhamnetin, naringenin, and pelargonidin inhibit only NF-kappaB activation along with their inhibitory effect on iNOS expression and NO production in activated macrophages. Mediat. Inflamm. 2007, 2007, 45673. [Google Scholar]
  117. Kempuraj, D.; Madhappan, B.; Christodoulou, S.; Boucher, W.; Cao, J.; Papadopoulou, N.; Cetrulo, C.L.; Theoharides, T.C. Flavonols inhibit proinflammatory mediator release, intracellular calcium ion levels and protein kinase C theta phosphorylation in human mast cells. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2005, 145, 934–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Bachert, C. Evidence-based management of acute rhinosinusitis with herbal products. Clin. Phytosci. 2020, 6, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Martin, D.; Konrad, M.; Adarkwah, C.C.; Kostev, K. Reduced antibiotic use after initial treatment of acute respiratory infections with phytopharmaceuticals- a retrospective cohort study. Postgrad. Med. 2020, 132, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Schuijt, T.J.; Lankelma, J.M.; Scicluna, B.P.; de Sousa e Melo, F.; Roelofs, J.J.; de Boer, J.D.; Hoogendijk, A.J.; de Beer, R.; de Vos, A.; Belzer, C.; et al. The gut microbiota plays a protective role in the host defence against pneumococcal pneumonia. Gut 2016, 65, 575–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Murgia, V.; Manti, S.; Licari, A.; De Filippo, M.; Ciprandi, G.; Marseglia, G.L. Upper respiratory tract infection-associated acute cough and the urge to cough: New insights for clinical practice. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. Pulmonol. 2020, 33, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Andrews, T.; Thompson, M.; Buckley, D.I.; Heneghan, C.; Deyo, R.; Redmond, N.; Lucas, P.J.; Blair, P.S.; Hay, A.D. Interventions to influence consulting and antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Kuchar, E.; Miskiewicz, K.; Szenborn, L.; Kurpas, D. Respiratory tract infections in children in primary healthcare in Poland. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2015, 835, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  124. Kronman, M.P.; Gerber, J.S.; Grundmeier, R.W.; Zhou, C.; Robinson, J.D.; Heritage, J.; Stout, J.; Burges, D.; Hedrick, B.; Warren, L.; et al. Reducing antibiotic prescribing in primary care for respiratory illness. Pediatrics 2020, 146, e20200038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Tran, H.T.T.; Peterburs, P.; Seibel, J.; Abramov-Sommariva, D.; Lamy, E. In vitro screening of herbal medicinal products for their supportive curing potential in the context of SARS-CoV-2. bioRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Seibel, J.; Kryshen, K.; Pongrácz, J.E.; Lehner, M.D. In vivo and in vitro investigation of anti-inflammatory and mucus-regulatory activities of a fixed combination of thyme and primula extracts. Pulm. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 51, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Seibel, J.; Pergola, C.; Werz, O.; Kryshen, K.; Wosikowski, K.; Lehner, M.D.; Haunschild, J. Bronchipret® syrup containing thyme and ivy extracts suppresses bronchoalveolar inflammation and goblet cell hyperplasia in experimental bronchoalveolitis. Phytomedicine 2015, 22, 1172–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Seibel, J.; Wonnemann, M.; Werz, O.; Lehner, M.D. A tiered approach to investigate the mechanism of anti-inflammatory activity of an herbal medicinal product containing a fixed combination of thyme herb and primula root extracts. Clin. Phytosci. 2018, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Glatthaar-Saalmuller, B.; Rauchhaus, U.; Rode, S.; Haunschild, J.; Saalmuller, A. Antiviral activity in vitro of two preparations of the herbal medicinal product Sinupret(R) against viruses causing respiratory infections. Phytomedicine 2011, 19, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Workman, A.D.; Maina, I.W.; Triantafillou, V.; Patel, N.N.; Tong, C.C.L.; Kuan, E.C.; Kennedy, D.W.; Palmer, J.N.; Adappa, N.D.; Cohen, N.A. Effects of BNO 1016 on ciliary transport velocity and cell culture surface liquid height of sinonasal epithelial cultures. Clin. Phytosci. 2021, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Cho, D.Y.; Skinner, D.; Mackey, C.; Lampkin, H.B.; Elder, J.B.; Lim, D.J.; Zhang, S.; McCormick, J.; Tearney, G.J.; Rowe, S.M.; et al. Herbal dry extract BNO 1011 improves clinical and mucociliary parameters in a rabbit model of chronic rhinosinusitis. Int. Forum. Allergy Rhinol. 2019, 9, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zhang, S.; Skinner, D.; Hicks, S.B.; Bevensee, M.O.; Sorscher, E.J.; Lazrak, A.; Matalon, S.; McNicholas, C.M.; Woodworth, B.A. Sinupret activates CFTR and TMEM16A-dependent transepithelial chloride transport and improves indicators of mucociliary clearance. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e104090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Kreindler, J.L.; Chen, B.; Kreitman, Y.; Kofonow, J.; Adams, K.M.; Cohen, N.A. The novel dry extract BNO 1011 stimulates chloride transport and ciliary beat frequency in human respiratory epithelial cultures. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 2012, 26, 439–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Rossi, A.; Dehm, F.; Kiesselbach, C.; Haunschild, J.; Sautebin, L.; Werz, O. The novel Sinupret® dry extract exhibits anti-inflammatory effectiveness in vivo. Fitoterapia 2012, 83, 715–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Stämmler, F.; Gläsner, J.; Hiergeist, A.; Holler, E.; Weber, D.; Oefner, P.J.; Gessner, A.; Spang, R. Adjusting microbiome profiles for differences in microbial load by spike-in bacteria. Microbiome 2016, 4, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Höller, M.; Steindl, H.; Abramov-Sommariva, D.; Wagenlehner, F.; Naber, K.G.; Kostev, K. Treatment of urinary tract infections with Canephron(®) in Germany: A retrospective database analysis. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Mestrovic, T.; Matijasic, M.; Peric, M.; Cipcic Paljetak, H.; Baresic, A.; Verbanac, D. The Role of Gut, Vaginal, and Urinary Microbiome in Urinary Tract Infections: From Bench to Bedside. Diagnostics 2020, 11, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Brenneis, C.; Künstle, G.; Haunschild, J. Spasmolytic Activity of Canephron® N on the Contractility of Rate and Human Isolated Urinary Bladder. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of the Society for Ethnopharmacology, Graz, Austria, 2–6 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
  139. Haloui, M.; Louedec, L.; Michel, J.B.; Lyoussi, B. Experimental diuretic effects of Rosmarinus officinalis and Centaurium erythraea. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2000, 71, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Nausch, B.; Künstle, G.; Mönch, B.; Koeberle, A.; Werz, O.; Haunschild, J.C. Canephron N alleviates pain in experimental cystitis and inhibits reactive oxygen/nitrogen species as well as microsomal prostaglandin E2 synthase-1. Der. Urol. 2015, 54, 28. [Google Scholar]
  141. Künstle, G.; Brenneis, C.; Haunschild, J. 671 Efficacy of Canephron® N against bacterial adhesion, inflammation and bladder hyperactivity. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 2013, 12, e671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Shebeko, S.K.; Chernykh, V.V.; Zupanets, K.O. Nephroprotective Effect of the Herbal Composition BNO 2103 in Rats with Renal Failure. Sci. Pharm. 2020, 88, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Nausch, B.; Pace, S.; Pein, H.; Koeberle, A.; Rossi, A.; Künstle, G.; Werz, O. The standardized herbal combination BNO 2103 contained in Canephron(®) N alleviates inflammatory pain in experimental cystitis and prostatitis. Phytomedicine 2019, 60, 152987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Naber, K.G.; Kogan, M.; Wagenlehner, F.M.E.; Siener, R.; Gessner, A. How the microbiome is influenced by the therapy of urological diseases: Standard versus alternative approaches. Clin. Phytosci. 2017, 3, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Zaniboni, D.; Ceretti, E.; Gelatti, U.; Pezzotti, M.; Covolo, L. Antibiotic resistance: Is knowledge the only driver for awareness and appropriate use of antibiotics? Ann Ig 2021, 33, 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  146. Cai, T.; Verze, P.; Palmieri, A.; Gacci, M.; Lanzafame, P.; Malossini, G.; Nesi, G.; Bonkat, G.; Wagenlehner, F.M.; Mirone, V.; et al. Is Preoperative Assessment and Treatment of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria Necessary for Reducing the Risk of Postoperative Symptomatic Urinary Tract Infections After Urologic Surgical Procedures? Urology 2017, 99, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Little, P.; Moore, M.V.; Turner, S.; Rumsby, K.; Warner, G.; Lowes, J.A.; Smith, H.; Hawke, C.; Leydon, G.; Arscott, A.; et al. Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010, 340, c199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Spurling, G.K.; Del Mar, C.B.; Dooley, L.; Foxlee, R.; Farley, R. Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 9, CD004417. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Antibiotics 11 01331 g001a 550Antibiotics 11 01331 g001b 550
Figure 1. Changes in microbiome after treatment of mice with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (day 7 and 84), moxifloxacin (day 7), BNO 2811 (day 7), or BNO 1011 (day 7), compared to a control group (water). (A) Similarity between individual bacterial compositions were studied using principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) of 16S rRNA gene sequencing data. Individual samples (colored dots) clustered well, according to the treatment groups. Ellipses represent the 95% confidence intervals, based on a multivariate t-distribution for each group. The center of each group is marked by small dots. Differential clustering of treatment groups after PCoA indicates compositional shifts after seven days of antibiotic treatment with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (orange dots). Additional shifts of bacterial compositions 11 weeks after discontinuation of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (d84, red triangles) point to a long-term damage of the microbiome, due to the antibiotic treatment. Bacterial compositions of mice treated with BNO 1011 and BNO 2811 showed high similarity to untreated mice, inferring no impact on the intestinal microbiome. Coordinates represent 41.4 and 16.1 percent variance of the dataset. (B) Taxonomy bar plot illustrating relative abundances of detected bacterial genera in samples and treatment groups.
Figure 1. Changes in microbiome after treatment of mice with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (day 7 and 84), moxifloxacin (day 7), BNO 2811 (day 7), or BNO 1011 (day 7), compared to a control group (water). (A) Similarity between individual bacterial compositions were studied using principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) of 16S rRNA gene sequencing data. Individual samples (colored dots) clustered well, according to the treatment groups. Ellipses represent the 95% confidence intervals, based on a multivariate t-distribution for each group. The center of each group is marked by small dots. Differential clustering of treatment groups after PCoA indicates compositional shifts after seven days of antibiotic treatment with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (orange dots). Additional shifts of bacterial compositions 11 weeks after discontinuation of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (d84, red triangles) point to a long-term damage of the microbiome, due to the antibiotic treatment. Bacterial compositions of mice treated with BNO 1011 and BNO 2811 showed high similarity to untreated mice, inferring no impact on the intestinal microbiome. Coordinates represent 41.4 and 16.1 percent variance of the dataset. (B) Taxonomy bar plot illustrating relative abundances of detected bacterial genera in samples and treatment groups.
Antibiotics 11 01331 g001aAntibiotics 11 01331 g001b
Antibiotics 11 01331 g002 550
Figure 2. Changes in microbiome after treatment of mice with fosfomycin (day 2 after a single dose), nitrofurantoin (day 7), and BNO 2103 (day 7), compared to a control group (water, day 7). (A) Similarity between individual bacterial compositions were studied using principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) of 16S rRNA gene sequencing data. Individual samples (colored dots) clustered well, according to the treatment groups. Ellipses represent the 95% confidence intervals, based on a multivariate t-distribution for each group. The center of each group is marked by small dots. Differential clustering of samples after treatment with fosfomycin or nitrofurantoin indicates compositional shifts after antibiotic treatment of mice, while mice treated with BNO 2103 or controls are clustering together, denoting similar bacterial compositions. Coordinates represent 28 and 11 percent of total variance of the dataset. (B) Taxonomy bar plot illustrating relative abundance of detected bacterial genera in samples and treatment groups.
Figure 2. Changes in microbiome after treatment of mice with fosfomycin (day 2 after a single dose), nitrofurantoin (day 7), and BNO 2103 (day 7), compared to a control group (water, day 7). (A) Similarity between individual bacterial compositions were studied using principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) of 16S rRNA gene sequencing data. Individual samples (colored dots) clustered well, according to the treatment groups. Ellipses represent the 95% confidence intervals, based on a multivariate t-distribution for each group. The center of each group is marked by small dots. Differential clustering of samples after treatment with fosfomycin or nitrofurantoin indicates compositional shifts after antibiotic treatment of mice, while mice treated with BNO 2103 or controls are clustering together, denoting similar bacterial compositions. Coordinates represent 28 and 11 percent of total variance of the dataset. (B) Taxonomy bar plot illustrating relative abundance of detected bacterial genera in samples and treatment groups.
Antibiotics 11 01331 g002
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nausch, B.; Bittner, C.B.; Höller, M.; Abramov-Sommariva, D.; Hiergeist, A.; Gessner, A. Contribution of Symptomatic, Herbal Treatment Options to Antibiotic Stewardship and Microbiotic Health. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11101331

AMA Style

Nausch B, Bittner CB, Höller M, Abramov-Sommariva D, Hiergeist A, Gessner A. Contribution of Symptomatic, Herbal Treatment Options to Antibiotic Stewardship and Microbiotic Health. Antibiotics. 2022; 11(10):1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11101331

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nausch, Bernhard, Claudia B. Bittner, Martina Höller, Dimitri Abramov-Sommariva, Andreas Hiergeist, and André Gessner. 2022. "Contribution of Symptomatic, Herbal Treatment Options to Antibiotic Stewardship and Microbiotic Health" Antibiotics 11, no. 10: 1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11101331

APA Style

Nausch, B., Bittner, C. B., Höller, M., Abramov-Sommariva, D., Hiergeist, A., & Gessner, A. (2022). Contribution of Symptomatic, Herbal Treatment Options to Antibiotic Stewardship and Microbiotic Health. Antibiotics, 11(10), 1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11101331

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop