One product, one panel, one record.
Integrative Therapeutics Pro-Flora Concentrate, 90 capsules (SKU 74369) — label audit
Six organisms, six real published strain designators — and no statement anywhere of whether the 1 billion CFU holds at manufacture or at expiry. The same brand, in the same product line, on a label filed four months later, writes the guarantee correctly: its women's SKU carries "a minimum of 1 billion potent and viable CFU through expiration date." Integrative demonstrably knows how to write it and did not write it here.
This page is an audit of a label. It records what this product’s panel discloses, what of that could be checked against a primary record, and what could not. The score below ranks this product on that disclosure and on nothing else.
The record this page rests on
- NIH label record
- Label read on
- The most recent dated artefact behind this page. Labels change; this is how old our reading of it is.
- Cohort
- Addendum — outside the founding denominators Torn down 2026-07-31, after the founding cohort of 27 was frozen. It sits outside every D₂₇ denominator this site publishes.
- How deep this went
- Full forensic teardown Panel transcribed, every strain designator queried, every certification chased to its issuer’s own register, and the literature behind each marketing claim opened and read.
- What did not survive verification
- Part of this page was refuted or could not be reproduced Three bounded items. First, both quality credentials are unverifiable rather than absent: the "third-party GMP Certification" names no issuer and is confirmed not to be NSF (register reachable, four spellings, positive controls passed), and the "ISO 17025 accreditation" names no accreditation body, with A2LA login-walled and ANAB returning Cloudflare 403. Do not write that this brand does not hold them. Second, the per-strain RCT count on this page is the source's own scorecard of 5 of 6, and the source gives an explicit RCT verdict for only four strains — NCFM, BL-04, BB536 and M-16V. It does not say which of Lr-32 and Bb-02 is the fifth, so both are recorded here as records-without-a-confirmed-RCT and the declared count of 5 is the source's, not a sum of these rows. Nothing on this page should be used to say that Lr-32 has, or lacks, a human RCT. Third, the Bb-02 slot cannot be resolved to a species at all — the label says "bifidum/lactis", DSLD records two organisms, PubMed uses the code for a third — so no trial may be attributed to it in either direction. What did survive verification in full: the UPC match between the live page and DSLD 313852; all six printed designators; the complete absence of any CFU-basis statement on this label; the through-expiry minimum on the brand's own women's SKU; the brand's verbatim FAQ admission that its dose sits far below the studied range; and the eight-product enumeration of the brand's Men's Health collection, which does not contain this SKU.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
44.7 out of 100
Rank 100 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score.
The score measures one thing: how much of what you are buying this company tells you, and how much of that survives being checked against a source that is not the company. It does not measure whether the product works — this site holds no efficacy data of its own, and 0 of 294 organism slots in the founding cohort carry a strain with a human randomised trial for any male-specific outcome, so nobody in this category has evidence that would support a ranking by effect.
Computed over the whole rubric: this record answers all five questions below, so nothing is renormalised away and the divisor is the full 1.00. That share travels with every score on this site and is never dropped — a score over part of the rubric’s weight and the same score over all of it are different claims.
| Component | Weight | What was counted, and where | Fraction | Weight × fraction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain identity printed on the panel | 0.24 | 6 of 6 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 6 / 6 = 1.0000 | 0.2400 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 6 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 6 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "none-stated": CFU figure printed yes, single basis stated no, basis reaches expiry no — 1 of 3. | 1 / 3 = 0.3333 | 0.073333 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | 4 of 6 checked organism slots resolve to at least one human randomised trial under the designator exactly as printed. This counts whether the identity leads to a trial, never what the trial found. | 4 / 6 = 0.6667 | 0.133333 |
| Certification confirmed at the issuer’s own register | 0.14 | 1 claimed certification queried at the issuer’s register and not listed there. | 0 / 1 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
0.446667 — the last column added up — divided by 1.00, the weight this record could answer, is 0.4467. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 44.7 above.
See this product’s row in the full ranking, alongside the other 153 scored products, or read what each of the five components asks and how to check it .
What this label discloses
Everything in this table is what the product itself states — on the printed panel, on the brand’s own page, or in the label record the manufacturer filed. Nothing in it is checked yet; checking is the next section.
| Disclosure | As recorded |
|---|---|
| CFU as printed | Proprietary Probiotic Blend Providing 1 Billion CFU — 12 mg |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 6 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
A CFU number appears with no temporal basis of any kind. A count with no basis is not a quantity; there is no date at which it is claimed to be true.
Every organism on the panel carries a printed strain designator. Whether those designators lead anywhere is a separate question, answered below.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | HOWARU NCFM | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM"[tiab] · "NCFM"[tiab] AND (randomized[pt] OR randomised[tiab] OR "randomized controlled trial"[pt]) |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus) | Lr-32 | — not stated separately | Human records, no RCT | "Lactobacillus rhamnosus Lr-32"[tiab] · "Lr-32"[tiab] OR "LR-32"[tiab] |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum/lactis | Bb-02 | — not stated separately | Human records, no RCT | "Bb-02"[tiab] OR "BB-02"[tiab] |
| Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis | BL-04 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "Bifidobacterium lactis Bl-04"[tiab] · "BL-04"[tiab] OR "Bl-04"[tiab] |
| Bifidobacterium longum | BB536 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "BB536"[tiab] · "BB536"[tiab] AND (randomized[pt] OR "randomized controlled trial"[pt]) |
| Bifidobacterium breve | M-16V | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "M-16V"[tiab] · "M-16V"[tiab] AND (randomized[pt] OR "randomized controlled trial"[pt]) |
What of that is verifiable
A disclosure is verifiable when a reader can open a record that neither we nor the brand controls and see the same thing. Below is every dated artefact this page rests on. What is absent from this list is not verified, however reasonable it sounds.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 313852 (opens in a new tab) captured NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record, on-market, entered 2024-04-23. UPC cross-check passed - the live page states "UPC: 871791003972" and DSLD records "8 71791 00397 2". Source for the six ingredient records (seven, once DSLD splits Bb-02 across two species), the 12 mg / 1 billion CFU blend, servingsPerContainer 90, the "Product of Japan" statement, the "Contains milk and fish (Tilapia)" allergen precaution, the "Guaranteed Delivery" and "Targeted Digestive Control" label statements, DSLD's own Structure/Function classification of the claims — and for the absence this page turns on: every transcribed statement was reviewed and none of them states a CFU basis.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — integrativepro-pro-flora-concentrate-2026-07-31https://integrativepro.com/products/pro-flora-concentrate — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Live product page, HTTP 200, with the full Supplement Facts in the page HTML — no image-only panel. Source for the $55.00 price (from the brand's own Shopify variant feed, sku 74369), the True Delivery Technology paragraph and its "maintaining full potency through the product's shelf life" phrasing, the FAQ that concedes the dose is far below the studied range, the FAQ item on milk that renders with an empty answer, and the health claims quoted verbatim on this page.
How many of its strains have a human trial for what it is sold for
Across the frozen founding cohort, 0 of 294 organism slots (0.0%) carry an organism with a human randomised controlled trial for any male-specific outcome. Not for this product — for all 27 of the founding teardowns, taken together. That is the number to hold against any men’s probiotic, including this one.
Two further founding-cohort figures for context: only 43 of 294 organism slots carry a strain with any human RCT at all under the exact code printed on the label, and only 2 of 27 products have a published human trial of the finished formula — the thing actually in the bottle. All three figures divide by the frozen cohort of 27 teardowns and 294 organism slots, never by every teardown on this site.
For this product specifically, 5 organism slots carry a strain with a human RCT under the exact designator printed on the label.
A word on what a designator has to clear before it counts here. The organism must be named with the exact strain code that appears in the trial, the trial must be in humans, and the code must return that trial when a reader searches it. A species name does not qualify: the trials in this field are of strains, and a species contains thousands of them.
What it costs per day
$0.61 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $55.00 USD
- What that buys
- 90-capsule bottle (90 servings, 1 capsule daily)
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://integrativepro.com/products/pro-flora-concentrate — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
What certification it holds, checked at the issuer’s own register
A badge on a bottle is a claim like any other. Every row below was checked — or not checked — at the certifier’s own public register, never at the badge. Across the frozen founding cohort, 2 of 27 products hold a certification we could confirm at the issuer — a founding-cohort figure, not a count over every teardown on this site.
| Programme | Status at the issuer | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| Third-party GMP Certification (certifying body not named) | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| ISO 17025 accreditation of the in-house laboratory (accreditation body not named) | Register unreachable | 31 July 2026 |
| NSF/ANSI 173 finished-product certification | Absent from register | 31 July 2026 |
Third-party GMP Certification (certifying body not named)
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Claimed verbatim on integrativepro.com/pages/quality - "we have received our third-party Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) Certification, which confirms that a facility is in compliance with the dietary supplement GMP regulations." The certifying body is never named. NSF's register was reachable and was queried at four spellings - Integrative Therapeutics, Integrative, Schwabe (parent group), Enzymatic (sibling Green Bay brand) and Green Bay - all returning No Matching Companies Found, with positive controls in the same query format returning live listings for Thorne, Designs for Health and Nestle. So the certification is not from NSF. It may well be genuine — NPA, UL and others issue legitimate GMP certificates. The defect is the unnamed issuer, which converts a verifiable claim into an unfalsifiable one.
ISO 17025 accreditation of the in-house laboratory (accreditation body not named)
The certifier’s register could not be queried at all. That is a finding about the verification infrastructure, not about the brand.
Claimed verbatim - "our onsite, state-of-the-art laboratory was awarded ISO 17025 accreditation in 2021." No accreditation body is named. A2LA's directory is login-walled ("Access Denied! Unauthorized user!") and ANAB returns a Cloudflare 403, so the claim could not be checked at any accreditation body's own register. Scope trap worth naming separately: an ISO 17025 accreditation covers the lab's testing competence, not the product. It says nothing about whether this bottle contains 1 billion CFU at expiry.
NSF/ANSI 173 finished-product certification
The register was queried and this product is not listed on it.
Not claimed by the brand, and checked for completeness. CompanyName=Integrative returns No Matching Companies Found on NSF's finished-product register, which was reachable this pass and returned live listings for control queries. No NSF Certified for Sport and no NSF-173 contents certification exists on any Integrative product.
How it differs from the same brand’s women’s version
Across the fourteen same-brand men’s-versus-women’s label diffs run inside the frozen founding cohort, zero men’s or default formulas contain a probiotic strain, identified by designator, that was selected on male-specific evidence. In eight of the fourteen the sex-specific differentiator is a botanical or a mineral, and in five of the fourteen the women’s SKU is better-specified, cheaper, or both — “better-specified” meaning the panel that discloses more, never the panel with more in it. The rule behind each of those counts, and all fourteen pairs classified against it , are published in full. Diffs run on teardowns added since sit outside this fourteen, and outside the sentence above.
Compared against Pro-Flora Women's Probiotic, 30 capsules. Diffed .
What the two panels differ by
- The women's SKU guarantees a minimum count through the expiration date; this SKU states no basis at all. Verbatim on the women's label - "Each capsule contains a minimum of 1 billion potent and viable CFU through expiration date." DSLD 313703 versus DSLD 313852
- The women's SKU is two strains selected for a sex-specific outcome — L. reuteri RC-14 and L. rhamnosus GR-1, the two most-studied urogenital probiotic strains in existence, with a real human RCT literature for female urogenital colonisation. This SKU is six GI-selected strains. DSLD 313703 versus DSLD 313852
- DSLD's target group is "Adult Female (18–50)" on the women's record and "Adult (18–50)" on this one. DSLD 313703 versus DSLD 313852
- Blend mass is 30 mg on the women's SKU against 12 mg here; origin is Product of Denmark (Chr. Hansen) against Product of Japan here; cost per day is $1.13 against $0.61 here. DSLD 313703 versus DSLD 313852
What is identical across the pair
- Both state 1 billion CFU total.
- Both are proprietary blends that disclose no per-strain CFU.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 cfu-basis-unstated-while-the-same-brands-womens-sku-states-it
The label says "Providing 1 Billion CFU" and every DSLD-transcribed statement on it was reviewed: there is no "at expiry", no "at time of manufacture", no "minimum through expiration date" and no guaranteed-potency footnote of any kind. Four months later the same brand entered Pro-Flora Women's Probiotic into DSLD carrying, verbatim, "Each capsule contains a minimum of 1 billion potent and viable CFU through expiration date." Same brand, same line, same 1 billion CFU.
The record: DSLD 313852 (no basis statement) versus DSLD 313703 (through-expiry minimum) — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 marketing-language-that-sounds-like-a-potency-guarantee-and-is-not-one
Two phrases do the work of a through-expiry guarantee without being one. The label statement "Guaranteed Delivery" is categorised in DSLD under Formulation re Other and is a claim about the pearl coating surviving stomach acid, not about CFU count at any point in time. The product page's "…while maintaining full potency through the product's shelf life" sits inside the True Delivery Technology marketing paragraph — a description of the encapsulation, not a Supplement Facts footnote, not lot-specific.
The record: DSLD 313852 label statements; integrativepro.com PDP True Delivery Technology paragraph, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://integrativepro.com/products/pro-flora-concentrate — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 3 bb-02-does-not-resolve-to-a-species
The label writes "Bifidobacterium bifidum/lactis Bb-02". DSLD splits that single entry into two ingredient records, so the US government's label database holds seven organisms where the label claims six. PubMed attaches the same designator to a third species. Any RCT cited for Bb-02 may have used a different organism than the one in this capsule.
The record: DSLD 313852 ingredient records; PMID 14630592 ("B. bifidum BB-02") and PMID 25391346 ("B. longum subsp. infantis BB-02") — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 4 proprietary-blend-excellent-designators-zero-dose-transparency
12 mg and 1 billion CFU covering six strains, with no per-strain split. The identity disclosure is among the best in the project and the dose disclosure is absent.
The record: integrativepro.com Supplement Facts, identical in DSLD 313852 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 5 total-dose-sits-at-or-below-the-floor-of-its-own-strains-literature
The NCFM, BB536 and M-16V trial literatures were overwhelmingly run at 1–10 billion CFU of the single strain. This product's entire six-strain payload is 1 billion CFU. The brand's own FAQ concedes it in writing - "Recent research on probiotics has suggested that many people can take daily dosages in amounts far in excess of the 1 billion CFU per day delivered by Pro-Flora Concentrate… studies have looked at doses as high as 100-200 billion cfu/day."
The record: integrativepro.com PDP FAQ, quoted verbatim, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://integrativepro.com/products/pro-flora-concentrate — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 6 certification-issuers-unnamed-and-confirmed-not-nsf
Both quality claims name the credential and not the issuer: a "third-party GMP Certification" and an "ISO 17025 accreditation" awarded in 2021. NSF's register was reachable and excludes the brand at four spellings with positive controls passing; A2LA is login-walled and ANAB returns 403. A certification whose issuer is not named cannot be checked by anyone.
The record: integrativepro.com/pages/quality; NSF GMP register four spellings with Thorne, Designs for Health and Nestle as positive controls — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 7 milk-allergen-not-surfaced-on-the-brands-own-page
The physical label per DSLD says "Contains milk and fish (Tilapia)." The product page's "Does Not Contain" list covers salt, wheat, soy and artificial colors and says nothing about milk, and the page's own FAQ question "Does Pro-Flora Concentrate contain milk?" renders with an empty answer. A milk-allergic buyer reading the brand's own page gets no answer to the question the page itself poses.
The record: DSLD 313852 Precautions re Allergies field versus integrativepro.com PDP FAQ, 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 8 m-16v-evidence-is-preterm-infant-and-allergy-research
M-16V's RCT body is heavily neonatal, preterm-infant and allergy research, and it is being implicitly borrowed for an adult colon-health product.
The record: PubMed "M-16V"[tiab] = 90, RCT-filtered = 23; example PMID 41515257, Nutrients 2026 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 9 the-two-most-clinically-studied-strains-are-named-as-species
The FAQ says "These strains are in addition to the two most clinically studied strains, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium longum…" Those are species, not strains, written in a sentence that uses the word "strains" — the same category error the whole category makes, on a page that otherwise gets strain identity right.
The record: integrativepro.com PDP FAQ, quoted verbatim, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://integrativepro.com/products/pro-flora-concentrate — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
What we could not verify
Every gap below is published rather than deleted. Most are derived automatically from the empty fields in this page’s own record, so a gap cannot be hidden by leaving a box blank.
- Third-party GMP Certification (certifying body not named) status
- Claimed verbatim on integrativepro.com/pages/quality - "we have received our third-party Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) Certification, which confirms that a facility is in compliance with the dietary supplement GMP regulations." The certifying body is never named. NSF's register was reachable and was queried at four spellings - Integrative Therapeutics, Integrative, Schwabe (parent group), Enzymatic (sibling Green Bay brand) and Green Bay - all returning No Matching Companies Found, with positive controls in the same query format returning live listings for Thorne, Designs for Health and Nestle. So the certification is not from NSF. It may well be genuine — NPA, UL and others issue legitimate GMP certificates. The defect is the unnamed issuer, which converts a verifiable claim into an unfalsifiable one.
- ISO 17025 accreditation of the in-house laboratory (accreditation body not named) status
- Claimed verbatim - "our onsite, state-of-the-art laboratory was awarded ISO 17025 accreditation in 2021." No accreditation body is named. A2LA's directory is login-walled ("Access Denied! Unauthorized user!") and ANAB returns a Cloudflare 403, so the claim could not be checked at any accreditation body's own register. Scope trap worth naming separately: an ISO 17025 accreditation covers the lab's testing competence, not the product. It says nothing about whether this bottle contains 1 billion CFU at expiry.
- The per-strain CFU
- One number, 1 billion CFU in 12 mg, covers all six organisms. The average would be about 167 million CFU per strain and any individual one could be a token sprinkle. Every strain-level efficacy claim implied by naming NCFM or BB536 was established at doses ten to a hundred times higher than this product's entire payload.
- Who issued the third-party GMP certification
- The brand does not name the body. NSF is excluded — its register was reachable, was queried at four spellings, and returned nothing, with positive controls passing. Do not write that the brand does not hold a GMP certification; write that the issuer is unnamed and therefore uncheckable.
- Who granted the ISO 17025 accreditation
- Not named by the brand. A2LA's directory is login-walled and ANAB returns Cloudflare 403, so it could not be confirmed or refuted at any accreditation body's register.
- Whether the product contains milk, as far as the brand's own page is concerned
- DSLD's transcription of the physical label reads "Contains milk and fish (Tilapia)." The live product page discloses the fish and tilapia gelatin prominently, twice, but its "Does Not Contain" list is salt, wheat, soy and artificial colors — milk is neither claimed absent nor disclosed as present — and the page's own FAQ item "Q: Does Pro-Flora Concentrate contain milk?" renders with an empty answer.
- Which of Lr-32 and Bb-02 is the fifth strain with a human RCT
- The source scores 5 of 6 strains as having at least one human RCT somewhere and gives an explicit RCT verdict for only four of them. It does not say which of the two remaining strains is the fifth, and this record does not guess.
How to check every line of this page yourself
Nothing on this page requires trusting us. Every claim above resolves to a record you can open:
- Open the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record linked at the top of this page. It is the label the manufacturer filed, not our transcription of it.
- Compare the CFU line and the suggested-use line against the disclosure table above. If they disagree with us, we are wrong and we want to know.
- Take any strain designator from the panel and run the query printed beside it. The query is published precisely so you can get a different answer than we did.
- Divide the price by the number of days the label’s own dose instructions make the container last. That arithmetic is the whole of the cost-per-day row.
- Search the certifier’s own register for this product, not for the brand. A company can participate in a programme without this product being on its list.
Give this label its due first, because the strain pedigree is genuinely good.
Every organism carries a real, published, industry-recognised designator: L. acidophilus HOWARU NCFM, L. rhamnosus Lr-32, Bifidobacterium Bb-02, B. lactis BL-04, B. longum BB536, B. breve M-16V. The panel is machine-readable HTML on the brand’s own site rather than trapped in a JPEG. It is one capsule a day. And the brand’s FAQ contains a piece of candour almost nobody in this category offers, which we will come back to.
Then the finding, and it is a hard one rather than a soft one.
This label states no CFU basis at all. Not at expiry, not at time of manufacture, not “minimum through expiration date.” Every statement DSLD transcribed from the physical label was reviewed and there is no guaranteed-potency footnote of any kind. What the brand offers instead is two phrases that sound like a guarantee and are not one: a “Guaranteed Delivery” label statement, which DSLD files under formulation and which is a claim about the pearl coating surviving stomach acid; and a product-page line about “maintaining full potency through the product’s shelf life”, which sits inside a marketing paragraph about the encapsulation technology and is not a Supplement Facts footnote.
The reason this is hard rather than soft: the same brand writes it correctly one SKU over. Four months after this label was filed, Integrative entered Pro-Flora Women’s Probiotic into the same database carrying, verbatim, “Each capsule contains a minimum of 1 billion potent and viable CFU through expiration date.” Same brand. Same Pro-Flora line. Same 1 billion CFU. The women’s SKU gets a through-expiry minimum; this one does not.
The dose is the second problem, and the brand says so itself. The trial literature behind NCFM, BB536 and M-16V was overwhelmingly run at 1–10 billion CFU of the single strain. This product’s entire six-strain payload is 1 billion. From the brand’s own FAQ:
“Recent research on probiotics has suggested that many people can take daily dosages in amounts far in excess of the 1 billion CFU per day delivered by Pro-Flora™ Concentrate… studies have looked at doses as high as 100-200 billion cfu/day.”
That is the manufacturer, on its own product page, telling you the dose is at the bottom of the studied range. And because the six strains share one 1 billion figure in a 12 mg proprietary blend, no individual one can be tied to any trial dose at all.
Then there is Bb-02, which is the sharpest teaching example this project has found. The label writes “Bifidobacterium bifidum/lactis Bb-02.” DSLD’s transcribers could not resolve that slash either and split the single entry into two ingredient records — so the US government’s label database holds seven organisms where the label claims six. PubMed attaches the same designator to a third species. A designator is only as good as its species anchor, and here the anchor is missing.
Both quality credentials name a credential and not an issuer. A “third-party GMP Certification” and an “ISO 17025 accreditation awarded in 2021”, with no body named for either. NSF is excluded — its register was reachable, four spellings were run, and positive controls passed — but A2LA is login-walled and ANAB returns a 403, so neither claim can be checked anywhere. They may well be genuine. The defect is the unnamed issuer, which turns a verifiable claim into an unfalsifiable one.
Finally, the thing this SKU is really here to show. Integrative runs a Men’s Health collection with eight products in it, and Pro-Flora Concentrate is not one of them; the one probiotic carrying a men’s tag is the brand’s generic entry-level SKU with nothing male-specific in it. But Integrative does sell a sex-specific probiotic — Pro-Flora Women’s, built on L. reuteri RC-14 and L. rhamnosus GR-1, the two most-studied urogenital strains in existence, dosed against a sex-specific outcome and guaranteed through expiry.
There is no men’s counterpart, because there is no equivalent male evidence base to build one on. A brand with the competence to build that formula for women, and the discipline to guarantee it through expiry, has built nothing analogous for men. That is not an oversight. It is a read on the literature.