-
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jul 2019With growing interest in the gut microbiome, prebiotics and probiotics have received considerable attention as potential treatments for depression and anxiety. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
With growing interest in the gut microbiome, prebiotics and probiotics have received considerable attention as potential treatments for depression and anxiety. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of 34 controlled clinical trials evaluating the effects of prebiotics and probiotics on depression and anxiety. Prebiotics did not differ from placebo for depression (d = -.08, p = .51) or anxiety (d = .12, p = .11). Probiotics yielded small but significant effects for depression (d = -.24, p < .01) and anxiety (d = -.10, p = .03). Sample type was a moderator for probiotics and depression, with a larger effect observed for clinical/medical samples (d = -.45, p < .001) than community ones. This effect increased to medium-to-large in a preliminary analysis restricted to psychiatric samples (d = -.73, p < .001). There is general support for antidepressant and anxiolytic effects of probiotics, but the pooled effects were reduced by the paucity of trials with clinical samples. Additional randomized clinical trials with psychiatric samples are necessary fully to evaluate their therapeutic potential.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics
PubMed: 31004628
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.023 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2022An emerging body of literature demonstrates differences in the gut microbiome (GMB) of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to healthy controls (HC),... (Review)
Review
An emerging body of literature demonstrates differences in the gut microbiome (GMB) of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to healthy controls (HC), as well as the potential benefits of prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic treatment. We conducted a systematic review of 24 observational studies (n = 2817), and 19 interventional trials (n = 1119). We assessed alpha diversity, beta diversity, and taxa abundance changes in patients with MDD relative to HC, as well as the effect of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on depressive symptoms in individuals with clinical or subclinical depression. We observed no significant differences in alpha diversity but a significant difference in beta diversity between patients with MDD and HC. There were fluctuations in the abundance of specific taxa in patients with MDD relative to HC. Probiotic and synbiotic, but not prebiotic, treatment showed a modest benefit in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with MDD over four to nine weeks. The GMB profiles of patients with MDD differ significantly from HC, but further studies are needed to elucidate the benefits of prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic treatments relative to antidepressants and over longer follow-up before these therapies are implemented into clinical practice.
Topics: Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics
PubMed: 35562885
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23094494 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2022Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition. Studies regarding the treatment of IBS with probiotics have not yielded consistent results, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition. Studies regarding the treatment of IBS with probiotics have not yielded consistent results, and the best probiotics has not yet been confirmed. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative rank order of different probiotics for IBS.
METHOD
We searched for RCTs on the efficacy of probiotics for IBS until August 25, 2021. The primary outcome was the symptom relief rate, as well as global symptoms, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. The NMA was conducted using Stata 15.0. We also used meta-regression to explore whether the treatment length and dose influenced the efficacy.
RESULTS
Forty-three RCTs, with 5,531 IBS patients, were included in this analysis. Firstly, we compared the efficacy of different probiotic species. exhibited the highest probability to be the optimal probiotic specie in improving IBS symptom relief rate, as well as global symptom, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. In regard to the secondary outcomes, ranked first in ameliorating the QOL of IBS patients, but without any significant differences compared with other probiotic species in standardized mean differences (SMD) estimates. Moreover, patients received had lowest incidence of adverse events. The meta-regression revealed that no significant differences were found between participants using different doses of probiotics in all outcomes, while the treatment length, as a confounder, can significantly influence the efficacy of probiotics in ameliorating abdominal pain (Coef = -2.30; p = 0.035) and straining (Coef = -3.15; p = 0.020) in IBS patients. Thus, we performed the subgroup analysis on treatment length subsequently in these two outcomes, which showed that efficacy of using 8 weeks ranked first both in improving the abdominal pain and straining scores. Additionally, still had significant efficacy compared to different types of probiotic combinations in present study.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this NMA suggested that had prominent efficacy in treating IBS patients, and incorporating into a probiotic combination, or genetically engineering it to amplify its biological function may be a future research target to treat IBS patients. With few direct comparisons available between individual therapies today, this NMA may have utility in forming treatment guideline for IBS with probiotics.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35433498
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.859967 -
BMJ Open Aug 2021To evaluate existing evidence for the use of probiotics in preventing antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) in adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate existing evidence for the use of probiotics in preventing antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) in adults.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
We performed a literature search of the electronic databases CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Web of Science from database inception to May 2021 as well as hand searching of trial registries and reference lists of related reviews.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers identified whether RCTs met the following inclusion criteria: adult population to whom antibiotics were administered; a probiotic intervention; a placebo, alternative dose, alternative probiotic strain or no treatment control; and incidence of AAD as the outcome.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently collected data and assessed risk of bias using preconstructed data extraction forms. We used a random effects model for all analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate species-specific and dose-specific response.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies (11,305 participants) were included in this review. The pooled analysis suggests that co-administration of probiotics with antibiotics reduces the risk of AAD in adults by 37% (risk ratio (RR)=0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), p<0.00001). The overall quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria was found to be moderate. In subgroup analyses, high dose compared with low dose of the same probiotic demonstrated a positive protective effect (RR 0.54 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.76), p<0.01), and only certain species, mainly of the lactobacillus and bifidobacteria genera, were found to be effective. Studies with a low baseline AAD risk did not show any difference in risk but studies with moderate or high baseline AAD risk demonstrated a significant risk reduction.
CONCLUSIONS
Probiotics are effective for preventing AAD. Secondary analyses of higher dosages and certain species have shown increased effectiveness. Our results may not be applicable in clinical scenarios of lower baseline AAD risk.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diarrhea; Humans; Incidence; Lactobacillus; Probiotics
PubMed: 34385227
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043054 -
Nutrients Jan 2020Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in...
Probiotic is little known for its benefits on upper gastrointestinal health. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy of probiotics in alleviating the frequency and severity of symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the general adult population. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective studies on GERD, heartburn, regurgitation, and dyspepsia, without any limitation on sample size. The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials. In total, 13 prospective studies that were published in 12 articles were included in the analysis and scored per the Jadad scale as high- (five studies), medium- (two), and low- (six) quality. One article reported on two probiotic groups; thus, 14 comparisons were included in the selected studies, of which 11 (79%) reported positive benefits of probiotics on symptoms of GERD. Five out of 11 positive outcomes (45%) noted benefits on reflux symptoms: three noted reduced regurgitation; improvements in reflux or heartburn were seen in one study; five (45%) saw improvements in dyspepsia symptoms; and nine (81%) saw improvements in other upper gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea (three studies), abdominal pain (five), and gas-related symptoms (four), such as belching, gurgling, and burping. In conclusion, probiotic use can be beneficial for GERD symptoms, such as regurgitation and heartburn. However, proper placebo-controlled, randomized, and double-blinded clinical trials with a sufficient number of participants are warranted to confirm its efficacy in alleviating these symptoms. Further, interventions with longer durations and an intermediate analysis of endpoints should be considered to determine the proper therapeutic window.
Topics: Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 31906573
DOI: 10.3390/nu12010132 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Apr 2020Growing attention has been paid to the field of gut microbiota for mental disorders over the last decade. However, to our knowledge, no studies have conducted systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Growing attention has been paid to the field of gut microbiota for mental disorders over the last decade. However, to our knowledge, no studies have conducted systematic reviews on the association between gut microbiota and major depressive disorder (MDD) in both interventional and non-interventional studies.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies (10 observational [701 participants] and six interventional trials [302 participants]) examining gut microbiota in patients with MDD. The primary outcome measures were differences in the profile of microbiota in the observational studies, and symptom changes for depression between pre- and post-intervention with probiotics in the interventional trials.
RESULTS
In the observational studies, significant reductions in several taxa at the family and genus levels were observed in patients with MDD compared to non-depressed controls. In the interventional studies with probiotics, a significant improvement was found in depressive symptomatology compared to controls (SMD = -1.62, 95% CI = -2.73 to -0.51, p< 0.01).
LIMITATIONS
Lack of consideration of the effects of diet and pharmacotherapy was a possible limitation.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that several taxa at the family and genus levels, specifically family Prevotellaceae, genus Corprococcus, and Faecalibacterium, were decreased in MDD compared to non-depressed controls in observational studies, and depressive symptoms were improved compared to controls in interventional studies with probiotics. Due to the limited number of studies, further studies considering diet and pharmacotherapy are needed to explore the relationships between gut microbiota and MDD in humans.
Topics: Depressive Disorder, Major; Diet; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Microbiota; Probiotics
PubMed: 32056863
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.102 -
Nutrients May 2020Lactose intolerance (LI) is characterized by the presence of primarily gastrointestinal clinical signs resulting from colonic fermentation of lactose, the absorption of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Lactose intolerance (LI) is characterized by the presence of primarily gastrointestinal clinical signs resulting from colonic fermentation of lactose, the absorption of which is impaired due to a deficiency in the lactase enzyme. These clinical signs can be modified by several factors, including lactose dose, residual lactase expression, concurrent ingestion of other dietary components, gut-transit time, and enteric microbiome composition. In many of individuals with lactose malabsorption, clinical signs may be absent after consumption of normal amounts of milk or, in particular, dairy products (yogurt and cheese), which contain lactose partially digested by live bacteria. The intestinal microbiota can be modulated by biotic supplementation, which may alleviate the signs and symptoms of LI. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the influence of prebiotics and probiotics on lactase deficiency and LI. The literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE (via PUBMED) and SCOPUS databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and included randomized controlled trials. For each study selected, the risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our findings showed varying degrees of efficacy but an overall positive relationship between probiotics and LI in relation to specific strains and concentrations. Limitations regarding the wide heterogeneity between the studies included in this review should be taken into account. Only one study examined the benefits of prebiotic supplementation and LI. So further clinical trials are needed in order to gather more evidence.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Animals; Databases, Factual; Diarrhea; Diet; Flatulence; Food, Fortified; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Lactase; Lactose; Lactose Intolerance; Milk; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Vomiting
PubMed: 32443748
DOI: 10.3390/nu12051487 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 17 December 2019, as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 12, 2019), in the Cochrane Library, and reference lists from studies and reviews. We included additional studies identified during external review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with a placebo or no probiotic in people with acute diarrhoea that is proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were measures of diarrhoea duration (diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours; duration of diarrhoea). Secondary outcomes were number of people hospitalized in community studies, duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies, diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 82 studies with a total of 12,127 participants. These studies included 11,526 children (age < 18 years) and 412 adults (three studies recruited 189 adults and children but did not specify numbers in each age group). No cluster-randomized trials were included. Studies varied in the definitions used for "acute diarrhoea" and "end of the diarrhoeal illness" and in the probiotic(s) tested. A total of 53 trials were undertaken in countries where both child and adult mortality was low or very low, and 26 where either child or adult mortality was high. Risk of bias was high or unclear in many studies, and there was marked statistical heterogeneity when findings for the primary outcomes were pooled in meta-analysis. Effect size was similar in the sensitivity analysis and marked heterogeneity persisted. Publication bias was demonstrated from funnel plots for the main outcomes. In our main analysis of the primary outcomes in studies at low risk for all indices of risk of bias, no difference was detected between probiotic and control groups for the risk of diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 2 trials, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or for duration of diarrhoea (mean difference (MD) 8.64 hours shorter, 95% CI 29.4 hours shorter to 12.1 hours longer; 6 trials, 3058 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Effect size was similar and marked heterogeneity persisted in pre-specified subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes that included all studies. These included analyses limited to the probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii. In six trials (433 participants) of Lactobacillus reuteri, there was consistency amongst findings (I² = 0%), but risk of bias was present in all included studies. Heterogeneity also was not explained by types of participants (age, nutritional/socioeconomic status captured by mortality stratum, region of the world where studies were undertaken), diarrhoea in children caused by rotavirus, exposure to antibiotics, and the few studies of children who were also treated with zinc. In addition, there were no clear differences in effect size for the primary outcomes in post hoc analyses according to decade of publication of studies and whether or not trials had been registered. For other outcomes, the duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies on average was shorter in probiotic groups than in control groups but there was marked heterogeneity between studies (I² = 96%; MD -18.03 hours, 95% CI -27.28 to -8.78, random-effects model: 24 trials, 4056 participants). No differences were detected between probiotic and control groups in the number of people with diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.53; 9 studies, 2928 participants) or in risk of hospitalization in community studies (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.89; 6 studies, 2283 participants). No serious adverse events were attributed to probiotics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Probiotics probably make little or no difference to the number of people who have diarrhoea lasting 48 hours or longer, and we are uncertain whether probiotics reduce the duration of diarrhoea. This analysis is based on large trials with low risk of bias.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Adult; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Humans; Infant; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33295643
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003048.pub4 -
Nutrients Dec 2021Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of neurodegenerative disorders affecting mostly the elderly. It is characterized by the presence of Aβ and...
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of neurodegenerative disorders affecting mostly the elderly. It is characterized by the presence of Aβ and neurofibrillary tangles (NFT), resulting in cognitive and memory impairment. Research shows that alteration in gut microbial diversity and defects in gut brain axis are linked to AD. Probiotics are known to be one of the best preventative measures against cognitive decline in AD. Numerous in vivo trials and recent clinical trials have proven the effectiveness of selected bacterial strains in slowing down the progression of AD. It is proven that probiotics modulate the inflammatory process, counteract with oxidative stress, and modify gut microbiota. Thus, this review summarizes the current evidence, diversity of bacterial strains, defects of gut brain axis in AD, harmful bacterial for AD, and the mechanism of action of probiotics in preventing AD. A literature search on selected databases such as PubMed, Semantic Scholar, Nature, and Springer link have identified potentially relevant articles to this topic. However, upon consideration of inclusion criteria and the limitation of publication year, only 22 articles have been selected to be further reviewed. The search query includes few sets of keywords as follows. (1) Probiotics OR gut microbiome OR microbes AND (2) Alzheimer OR cognitive OR aging OR dementia AND (3) clinical trial OR in vivo OR animal study. The results evidenced in this study help to clearly illustrate the relationship between probiotic supplementation and AD. Thus, this systematic review will help identify novel therapeutic strategies in the future as probiotics are free from triggering any adverse effects in human body.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Brain-Gut Axis; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Probiotics
PubMed: 35010895
DOI: 10.3390/nu14010020 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of probiotics in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of probiotics in allergic rhinitis; however, evidence for their use has yet to be firmly established.
OBJECTIVE
We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to address the effect and safety of probiotics on allergic rhinitis.
METHODS
We systematically searched databases [MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials] from inception until June 1, 2021. Qualified literature was selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data were extracted, and a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included. The results showed that probiotics significantly relieved allergic rhinitis symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.44, -0.13]; = 0.0003, = 89%), decreased Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores compared with the control group (SMD, -0.64, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.49], < 0.00001, = 97%), and increased T helper cell 1(Th1)/Th2 ratio (mean difference [MD], -2.47, 95% CI [-3.27, -1.68], < 0.00001, = 72%). There was no significant change in overall or specific IgE levels between probiotic-treated and placebo-treated subjects (SMD, 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34], = 0%, and SMD, -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.13], = 0.72, = 0%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
To sum up, probiotic supplement seems to be effective in ameliorating allergic rhinitis symptoms and improving the quality of life, but there is high heterogeneity in some results after subgroup analysis and clinicians should be cautious when recommending probiotics in treating allergic rhinitis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, PROSPERO (CRD42021242645).
Topics: Humans; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35663980
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.848279