-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up to 25% of visits to paediatric gastroenterologists. Probiotic preparations may sufficiently alter the gut microbiome and promote normal gut physiology in a way that helps relieve functional constipation. Several studies have sought to address this hypothesis, as well as the role of probiotics in other functional gut disorders. Therefore, it is important to have a focused review to assess the evidence to date.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the management of chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children.
SEARCH METHODS
On 28 June 2021, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, WHO ICTR, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with no language, date, publication status, or document type limitations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) compared to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in people aged between 0 and 18 years old with a diagnosis of functional constipation according to consensus criteria (such as Rome IV).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (1127 randomised participants): 12 studies assessed probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation, whilst two studies investigated synbiotic preparations. Three studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to the frequency of defecation at study end, but we did not pool them as there was very significant unexplained heterogeneity. Four studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to treatment success. There may be no difference in global improvement/treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.26; 313 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, with the pooled effect suggesting there may be no difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.95; 357 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pooled estimate from three studies that compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone found there may be no difference in frequency of defecation (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.56; 268 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to global improvement/treatment success, and found there may be no difference between the treatments (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies compared probiotics plus osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, but it is unclear if there is a difference between them (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.35; 268 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics versus magnesium oxide. It is unclear if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.14; 36 participants), treatment success (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57; 36 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04; 77 participants). The certainty of the evidence is very low for these outcomes. One study assessed the role of a synbiotic preparation in comparison to placebo. There may be higher treatment success in favour of synbiotics compared to placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.47; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study assessed a synbiotic plus paraffin compared to paraffin alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.74, 95% CI -0.96, 2.44; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or treatment success (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study compared a synbiotic preparation to paraffin. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD -1.53, 95% CI -3.00, -0.06; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or in treatment success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65, 1.13; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. All secondary outcomes were either not reported or reported in a way that did not allow for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether probiotics are efficacious in successfully treating chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children or changing the frequency of defecation, or whether there is a difference in withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There is limited evidence from one study to suggest a synbiotic preparation may be more likely than placebo to lead to treatment success, with no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to draw efficacy or safety conclusions about the use of probiotics in combination with or in comparison to any of the other interventions reported. The majority of the studies that presented data on serious adverse events reported that no events occurred. Two studies did not report this outcome. Future studies are needed to confirm efficacy, but the research community requires guidance on the best context for probiotics in such studies, considering where they should be best considered in a potential treatment hierarchy and should align with core outcome sets to support future interpretation of findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Constipation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35349168
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014257.pub2 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Supplementation of infant and follow-up formula with probiotics or synbiotics has become a common practice. In 2011 and 2017, the evidence regarding the impact of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Supplementation of infant and follow-up formula with probiotics or synbiotics has become a common practice. In 2011 and 2017, the evidence regarding the impact of these interventions was analysed systematically. Recently new evidence was published. To evaluate through a systematic review with network meta-analysis the evidence on the impact of infant formula supplemented with probiotics or synbiotics for healthy infants and 36-month-old toddlers. RCTs published between 1999-2019 for infant formulas supplemented with probiotics alone or synbiotics in healthy infants and toddlers were identified. Data analysis included clinical (gastrointestinal symptoms, risk reduction of infectious diseases, use of antibiotics, weight/height gain and frequency of adverse events) and non-clinical outcomes (changes in faecal microbiota and immune parameters). A random effect model was used. Hedges' standard mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) were calculated. Rank analysis was performed to evaluate the superiority of each intervention. Twenty-six randomised controlled trials with 35 direct comparisons involving 1957 children receiving probiotic-supplemented formula and 1898 receiving control formula were reviewed. The mean duration of intervention was 5.6 ± 2.84 months. Certain strains demonstrated a reduction in episodes of colic, number of days with fever and use of antibiotics; however, there was considerable heterogeneity which reduced the level of certainty of effect. No significant effects were observed on weight, height or changes in faecal proportions of or . Although there is some evidence that may support a potential benefit of probiotic or synbiotic supplementation of infant formulas, variation in the quality of existing trials and the heterogeneity of the data preclude the establishment of robust recommendations.
Topics: Infant; Humans; Child, Preschool; Infant Formula; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Synbiotics; Bifidobacterium; Weight Gain; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36501205
DOI: 10.3390/nu14235175 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Probiotics play a vital role in treating immune and inflammatory diseases by improving intestinal barrier function; however, a comprehensive evaluation is missing. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics play a vital role in treating immune and inflammatory diseases by improving intestinal barrier function; however, a comprehensive evaluation is missing. The present study aimed to explore the impact of probiotics on the intestinal barrier and related immune function, inflammation, and microbiota composition. A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted.
METHODS
Four major databases (PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, CENTRAL, and Embase) were thoroughly searched. Weighted mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), heterogeneity among studies was evaluated utilizing I2 statistic (Chi-Square test), and data were pooled using random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of data from a total of 26 RCTs (n = 1891) indicated that probiotics significantly improved gut barrier function measured by levels of TER (MD, 5.27, 95% CI, 3.82 to 6.72, P < 0.00001), serum zonulin (SMD, -1.58, 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.66, P = 0.0007), endotoxin (SMD, -3.20, 95% CI, -5.41 to -0.98, P = 0.005), and LPS (SMD, -0.47, 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.09, P = 0.02). Furthermore, probiotic groups demonstrated better efficacy over control groups in reducing inflammatory factors, including CRP, TNF-α, and IL-6. Probiotics can also modulate the gut microbiota structure by boosting the enrichment of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus.
CONCLUSION
The present work revealed that probiotics could improve intestinal barrier function, and alleviate inflammation and microbial dysbiosis. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted to achieve a more definitive conclusion.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=281822, identifier CRD42021281822.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Inflammation; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Bifidobacterium
PubMed: 37168869
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1143548 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia, sepsis, pyelonephritis and kidney dysfunction. Mortality rates are reported to be as high as 1% in men and 3% in women due to development of pyelonephritis. Because probiotic therapy is readily available without a prescription, a review of their efficacy in the prevention of UTI may aid consumers in making informed decisions about potential prophylactic therapy. Institutions and caregivers also need evidence-based synopses of current evidence to make informed patient care decisions.
OBJECTIVES
Compared to placebo or no therapy, did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality, when used to prevent UTI in susceptible patient populations?Compared to other prophylactic interventions, including drug and non-drug measures (e.g. continuous antibiotic prophylaxis, topical oestrogen, cranberry juice), did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality when used to prevent UTIs in susceptible patient populations?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 21 September 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of susceptible patients (e.g. past history of UTI) or healthy people in which any strain, formulation, dose or frequency of probiotic was compared to placebo or active comparators were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All RCTs and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at comparing probiotics to no therapy, placebo, or other prophylactic interventions were included. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that involved 735 people in this review. Four studies compared probiotic with placebo, two compared probiotic with no treatment, two compared probiotics with antibiotics in patients with UTI, and one study compared probiotic with placebo in healthy women. All studies aimed to measure differences in rates of recurrent UTI.Our risk of bias assessment found that most studies had small sample sizes and reported insufficient methodological detail to enable robust assessment. Overall, there was a high risk of bias in the included studies which lead to inability to draw firm conclusions and suggesting that any reported treatment effects may be misleading or represent overestimates.We found no significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI between patients treated with probiotics and placebo (6 studies, 352 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; I(2) = 23%) with wide confidence intervals, and statistical heterogeneity was low. No significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI was found between probiotic and antibiotic treated patients (1 study, 223 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33).The most commonly reported adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, constipation and vaginal symptoms. None of the included studies reported numbers of participants with at least one asymptomatic bacterial UTI, all-cause mortality or those with at least one confirmed case of bacteraemia or fungaemia. Two studies reported study withdrawal due to adverse events and the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event. One study reported withdrawal occurred in six probiotic participants (5.2%), 15 antibiotic participants (12.2%), while the second study noted one placebo group participant discontinued treatment due to an adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No significant benefit was demonstrated for probiotics compared with placebo or no treatment, but a benefit cannot be ruled out as the data were few, and derived from small studies with poor methodological reporting.There was limited information on harm and mortality with probiotics and no evidence on the impact of probiotics on serious adverse events. Current evidence cannot rule out a reduction or increase in recurrent UTI in women with recurrent UTI who use prophylactic probiotics. There was insufficient evidence from one RCT to comment on the effect of probiotics versus antibiotics.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 26695595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008772.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been hypothesised that the use of micro-organisms, such as probiotics and synbiotics (a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics), might change the composition of bacterial colonies in the bowel and reduce inflammation, as well as promote normal gut physiology and reduce functional symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of functional abdominal pain disorders in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and two clinical trials registers from inception to October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in patients aged between 4 and 18 years of age with a diagnosis of functional abdominal pain disorder according to the Rome II, Rome III or Rome IV criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcomes were treatment success as defined by the primary studies, complete resolution of pain, improvement in the severity of pain and improvement in the frequency of pain. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, adverse events, school performance or change in school performance or attendance, social and psychological functioning or change in social and psychological functioning, and quality of life or change in quality life measured using any validated scoring tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs assessing the effectiveness of probiotics and synbiotics in reducing the severity and frequency of pain, involving a total of 1309 patients. Probiotics may achieve more treatment success when compared with placebo at the end of the treatment, with 50% success in the probiotic group versus 33% success in the placebo group (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.36; 554 participants; 6 studies; I = 70%; low-certainty evidence). It is not clear whether probiotics are more effective than placebo for complete resolution of pain, with 42% success in the probiotic group versus 27% success in the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.56; 460 participants; 6 studies; I = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the evidence to be of very low certainty due to high inconsistency and risk of bias. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of the pain severity and pain frequency outcomes due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between probiotics (1/275) and placebo (1/269) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.12). The results were identical for the total patients with any reported adverse event outcome. However, these results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. Synbiotics may result in more treatment success at study end when compared with placebo, with 47% success in the probiotic group versus 35% success in the placebo group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.74; 310 participants; 4 studies; I = 0%; low certainty). One study used Bifidobacterium coagulans/fructo-oligosaccharide, one used Bifidobacterium lactis/inulin, one used Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/inulin and in one study this was not stated). Synbiotics may result in little difference in complete resolution of pain at study end when compared with placebo, with 52% success in the probiotic group versus 32% success in the placebo group (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 131 participants; 2 studies; I = 18%; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of pain severity or frequency of pain due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between synbiotics (8/155) and placebo (1/147) (RR 4.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 26.19), or in any reported adverse events (3/96 versus 1/93, RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.92). These results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. There were insufficient data to analyse by subgroups of specific functional abdominal pain syndrome (irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, abdominal migraine, functional abdominal pain - not otherwise specified) or by specific strain of probiotic. There was insufficient evidence on school performance or change in school performance/attendance, social and psychological functioning, or quality of life to draw conclusions about the effects of probiotics or synbiotics on these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results from this review demonstrate that probiotics and synbiotics may be more efficacious than placebo in achieving treatment success, but the evidence is of low certainty. The evidence demonstrates little to no difference between probiotics or synbiotics and placebo in complete resolution of pain. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of probiotics or synbiotics on the frequency and severity of pain as the evidence was all of very low certainty due to significant unexplained heterogeneity or imprecision. There were no reported cases of serious adverse events when using probiotics or synbiotics amongst the included studies, although a review of RCTs may not be the best context to assess long-term safety. The available evidence on adverse effects was of very low certainty and no conclusions could be made in this review. Safety will always be a priority in paediatric populations when considering any treatment. Reporting of all adverse events, adverse events needing withdrawal, serious adverse events and, particularly, long-term safety outcomes are vital to meaningfully move forward the evidence base in this field. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies to confirm the safety of specific strains not yet investigated and studies to investigate long-term follow-up of patients are both warranted.
Topics: Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Inulin; Probiotics; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Abdominal Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36799531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012849.pub2 -
International Journal of Molecular... Feb 2023Depression is one of the main mental disorders. Pharmacological treatment of depression is often associated with delayed effects or insufficient efficacy. Consequently,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Depression is one of the main mental disorders. Pharmacological treatment of depression is often associated with delayed effects or insufficient efficacy. Consequently, there is a need to discover new therapeutic methods to cope with depression faster and more effectively. Several lines of evidence indicate that the use of probiotic therapy reduces depressive symptoms. Nonetheless, the exact mechanisms linking the gut microbiota and the central nervous system, as well as the potential mechanisms of action for probiotics, are still not entirely clarified. The aim of this review was to systematically summarize the available knowledge according to PRISMA guidelines on the molecular mechanisms linking probiotics and healthy populations with subclinical depression or anxiety symptoms, as well as depressed patients with or without comorbid somatic illnesses. The standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. Twenty records were included. It has been found that probiotic administration is linked to a significant increase in BDNF levels during probiotic treatment compared to the placebo (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI [0.07, 0.68], = 0.02) when considering the resolution of depressive symptoms in depressed patients with or without comorbid somatic illnesses. CRP levels were significantly lower (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI [0.75, -0.19], = 0.001), and nitric oxide levels were significantly higher (SMD = 0.97, 95% CI [0.58, 1.36], < 0.0001) in probiotic-treated patients compared to the placebo, however, only among depressed patients with somatic co-morbidities. There were no significant differences in IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α, and cortisol levels after probiotic administration between the intervention and control groups (all > 0.05). Firm conclusions on the effectiveness of probiotics and their possible association with inflammatory markers in the healthy population (only with subclinical depressive or anxiety symptoms) cannot be drawn. The advent of clinical trials examining the long-term administration of probiotics could evaluate the long-term effectiveness of probiotics in treating depression and preventing its recurrence.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Anxiety; Gastrointestinal Microbiome
PubMed: 36834489
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24043081 -
BMC Geriatrics Jul 2022Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) is diarrhea associated with consuming antibiotics that cannot be explained by other causes. AAD prolongs admission time and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) is diarrhea associated with consuming antibiotics that cannot be explained by other causes. AAD prolongs admission time and increases mortality and financial costs. Elderly individuals are more prone to receive antibiotic treatment and develop AAD. The finding that living probiotic microorganisms decrease AAD incidence in adults (<65 years) has been clarified. However, it is controversial among elderly individuals.
METHODS
We aimed to explore whether probiotics could prevent AAD in elderly individuals. We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library), and two reviewers independently screened and assessed the studies. RevMan5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs of 4691 participants were included. We excluded two large studies because probiotics were used 48 hours after the first dose of antibiotics, and there was no effect. Subgroup analysis of 6 RCTs showed that probiotics given within two days of antibiotic treatment produced a lower AAD prevalence rate in elderly individuals.
CONCLUSION
We recommend that elderly individuals could be routinely distributed probiotics to prevent AAD development when receiving antibiotic treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The review was not registered.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diarrhea; Humans; Probiotics; Software
PubMed: 35794520
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03257-3 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) May 2023Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder which affects a great number of patients globally. Clinical trials and meta-analyses have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials using ROME IV criteria.
BACKGROUND
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder which affects a great number of patients globally. Clinical trials and meta-analyses have evaluated different therapies for IBS. Some of them have shown that probiotics play a significant role in the management of IBS-patients. Nevertheless, results are controversial, and the efficacy of the administration of probiotics remains to be confirmed, especially in regard to which type of probiotic-strains are beneficial.
AIM
The aim of the present meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety of the administration of probiotics to IBS-patients with a diagnosis based on Rome IV criteria, which is performed for the first time.
METHODS
Electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane) were searched until 26.01.2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the administration of probiotics in adult IBS-patients, who were categorized according to the Rome IV criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB) 2.0. Weighted and standardized mean difference with the 95% confidence intervals were used for the synthesis of the results. Primary outcomes were the decrease of IBS-Symptom Severity Score (IBS-SSS) and decrease of abdominal pain. The secondary outcomes were the improvement in quality of life (QoL) and the decrease of bloating. Lastly, the adverse effects of probiotics were evaluated. The protocol of the study has been registered at protocols.io (DOI dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.14egn218yg5d/v1).
RESULTS
Six double-blind (N = 970) placebo-control RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria and overall, nine different strains of probiotics were examined. No significant reduction in IBS-SSS (WMD -43.2, 95% CI -87.5 to 1.0, I = 82.9%) was demonstrated, whereas a significant decrease regarding abdominal pain (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.35, I = 92,2) was shown. Furthermore, no correlation between improvement of QoL and the use of probiotics (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.00, I = 93,9%) was shown. However, probiotics were associated with a significant reduction in bloating (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.09, I = 36,0%). A qualitative synthesis was conducted about adverse events and showed that the use of probiotics' is safe without severe adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
The administration of probiotics to IBS-patients demonstrated a positive effect on pain and bloating, but due to significant heterogeneity and confounding factors, that were not examined in the included studies, a definitive statement cannot be made. Moreover, probiotics did not lead to an improvement in other parameters. There is a need for larger RCTs in IBS-patients diagnosed according to Rome IV (not III) criteria and especially it is essential to be conducted RCTs which examine the administration of specific strains and have similar methodological characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Abdominal Pain; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37031468
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2023.03.019 -
Nutrients Aug 2018Acute diarrhea is a burdensome disease with potentially harmful consequences, especially in childhood. Despite its large use in clinical practice, the efficacy of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acute diarrhea is a burdensome disease with potentially harmful consequences, especially in childhood. Despite its large use in clinical practice, the efficacy of the probiotic in treating acute childhood diarrhea remains unclear. Our objective was to systematically review the efficacy of in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea. The following electronic databases were systematically searched up to October 2017: MEDLINE (via PubMed/OVID), EMBASE (via OVID), Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials (via CENTRAL), Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The overall effect for the meta-analysis was derived by using a random effects model. Six randomized controlled trials (1298 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Data arising from pooled analysis showed that significantly reduced the duration of diarrhea (mean difference = -9.12 h; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -16.49 to -1.75, = 0.015), and the duration of hospitalization (mean difference = -0.85 days; 95% CI: -1.56 to -0.15, = 0.017), compared with control. There was a trend of decreasing stool frequency after administration compared with the control group (mean difference = -0.19 diarrheal motions; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.06, = 0.14). may represent an effective therapeutic option in acute childhood diarrhea, with a good safety profile.
Topics: Acute Disease; Age of Onset; Bacillus clausii; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Humans; Infant; Length of Stay; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30103531
DOI: 10.3390/nu10081074 -
European Journal of Nutrition Aug 2021Probiotics have been reported to be beneficial for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the types, number of strains, dosage, and intervention time of probiotics used... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Probiotics have been reported to be beneficial for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the types, number of strains, dosage, and intervention time of probiotics used remain controversial. Furthermore, the changes of gut microbiota in IBD's patients are also intriguing. Thus, this meta-analysis was to explore the clinical effects and gut microbiota changes of using probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in IBD.
METHODS
The search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from inception to April 2020. Qualified randomized controlled trials were included. IBD's remission rate, disease activity index and recurrence rate were extracted and analyzed. Changes in the gut microbiota of patients with IBD are comprehensively described.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight articles were included. Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics can induce/maintain IBD's remission and reduce ulcerative colitis (UC) disease activity index (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.02, 1.26, P < 0.05; SMD = 1.00, 95% CI 0.27, 1.73, P < 0.05). In subgroup analyses of IBD remission rate and UC disease activity index, we obtained some statistically significant results in some subgroup (P < 0.05). To some extent, probiotic supplements can increase the number of beneficial bacteria (especially Bifidobacteria) in the intestinal tract of patients with IBD.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results support the treatment of IBD (especially UC) with pro/pre/synbiotics, and synbiotics are more effective. Probiotic supplements that are based on Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium or more than one strain are more likely to be beneficial for IBD remission. The dose of 10-10 CFU/day may be a reference range for using probiotics to relieve IBD.
Topics: Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics
PubMed: 33555375
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-021-02503-5