Effects of synbiotics on cancer risk biomarkers

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cause of death from cancer in the world and second most common (behind lung cancer) in developed countries. In recent years there has been much interest in the potential use of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics in the prevention and treatment of CRC. We have previously shown that synbiotic consumption in Azoxymethane treated rats modulates the immune system, influences the genotoxic potential of caecal contents and reduces the number of colonic tumours compared to control rats who did not receive the synbiotic. The aim of the current study was to identify biomarkers suitable for use as cancer risk markers and as intervention markers. A second aim was to determine the influence of synbiotic consumption on cancer risk biomarkers such as in vivo colonic mucosal proliferation and genotoxic damage along with examining the genotoxic, cytotoxic and tumour promoting potential of faecal water (FW). Synbiotic consumption altered the composition of the gastrointestinal flora and reduced in vivo genotoxic damage and the genotoxic potential of FW in cancer and polyp subjects. Synbiotic consumption also reduced the proliferative activity in the colonic mucosa in polyp subjects. In both cancer and polyp subjects gene expression in the colonic mucosa was modulated in synbiotic consuming subjects. In this and other studies the activity of natural killer cells, the level of PGE2 in FW, IL-12 production by PBMCs, genotoxic damage in the colonic mucosa and the tumour promoting activities of FW have been identified as possible biomarkers of cancer risk. Future large scale studies investigating these parameters in healthy and diseased individuals are needed to confirm the suitability of these markers in assessing cancer risk and the role of synbiotics in modulating them.

Malaria prevention in north-eastern Tanzania: patterns of expenditure and determinants of demand at the household level.

Objective. This study aims to provide a better understanding of the amounts spent on different malaria prevention products and the determinants of these expenditures. Methods. 1,601 households were interviewed about their expenditure on malaria mosquito nets in the past five years, net re-treatments in the past six months and other expenditures prevention in the past two weeks. Simple random sampling was used to select villages and streets while convenience sampling was used to select households. Expenditure was compared across bed nets, aerosols, coils, indoor spraying, using smoke, drinking herbs and cleaning outside environment. Findings. 68% of households owned at least one bed net and 27% had treated their nets in the past six months. 29% were unable to afford a net. Every fortnight, households spent an average of US $0.18 on nets and their treatment, constituting about 47% of total prevention expenditure. Sprays, repellents and coils made up 50% of total fortnightly expenditure (US$0.21). Factors positively related to expenditure were household wealth, years of education of household head, household head being married and rainy season. Poor quality roads and living in a rural area had a negative impact on expenditure. Conclusion. Expenditure on bed nets and on alternative malaria prevention products was comparable. Poor households living in rural areas spend significantly less on all forms of malaria prevention compared to their richer counterparts. Breaking the cycle between malaria and poverty is one of the biggest challenges facing malaria control programmes in Africa.