-
Nutrients Jan 2021Recent evidence supports a role of probiotics in preventing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recent evidence supports a role of probiotics in preventing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants.
METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the role of probiotics in preventing NEC in preterm infants, focusing on the differential effect of type of feeding, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A random-effects model was used; a subgroup analysis on exclusively human milk (HM)-fed infants vs. infants receiving formula (alone or with HM) was performed.
RESULTS
Fifty-one trials were included (10,664 infants, 29 probiotic interventions); 31 studies (19 different probiotic regimens) were suitable for subgroup analysis according to feeding. In the overall analysis, LB revealed the most promising effect for reducing NEC risk (odds ratio (OR), 0.03; 95% credible intervals (CrIs), 0.00-0.21). The subgroup analysis showed that Bb-12/B94 was associated with a reduced risk of NEC stage ≥2 in both feeding type populations, with a discrepancy in the relative effect size in favour of exclusively HM-fed infants (OR 0.04; 95% CrIs <0.01-0.49 vs. OR 0.32; 95% CrIs 0.10-0.36).
CONCLUSIONS
Bb-12/B94 could reduce NEC risk with a different size effect according to feeding type. Of note, most probiotic strains are evaluated in few trials and relatively small populations, and outcome data according to feeding type are not available for all RCTs. Further trials are needed to confirm the present findings.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Infant, Premature; Lactobacillus acidophilus; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics
PubMed: 33435456
DOI: 10.3390/nu13010192 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. The prevention of GDM using lifestyle interventions... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. The prevention of GDM using lifestyle interventions has proven difficult. The gut microbiome (the composite of bacteria present in the intestines) influences host inflammatory pathways, glucose and lipid metabolism and, in other settings, alteration of the gut microbiome has been shown to impact on these host responses. Probiotics are one way of altering the gut microbiome but little is known about their use in influencing the metabolic environment of pregnancy. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the effects of probiotic supplements used either alone or in combination with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of GDM.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 March 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing the use of probiotic supplementation with either placebo or diet for the prevention of the development of GDM. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over design studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies presented only as abstracts with no subsequent full report of study results were only included if study authors confirmed that data in the abstract came from the final analysis. Otherwise, the abstract was left awaiting classification.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we included seven trials with 1647 participants. Two studies were in overweight and obese women, two in obese women and three did not exclude women based on their weight. All included studies compared probiotics with placebo. The included studies were at low risk of bias overall except for one study that had an unclear risk of bias. We excluded two studies, eight studies were ongoing and three studies are awaiting classification. Six included studies with 1440 participants evaluated the risk of GDM. It is uncertain if probiotics have any effect on the risk of GDM compared to placebo (mean risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.20; 6 studies, 1440 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was low certainty due to substantial heterogeneity and wide CIs that included both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm. Probiotics increase the risk of pre-eclampsia compared to placebo (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.29; 4 studies, 955 women; high-certainty evidence) and may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.01, 4 studies, 955 women), although the CIs for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy also indicated probiotics may have no effect. There were few differences between groups for other primary outcomes. Probiotics make little to no difference in the risk of caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17; 6 studies, 1520 women; high-certainty evidence), and probably make little to no difference in maternal weight gain during pregnancy (MD 0.30 kg, 95% CI -0.67 to 1.26; 4 studies, 853 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Probiotics probably make little to no difference in the incidence of large-for-gestational age infants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.36; 4 studies, 919 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in neonatal adiposity (2 studies, 320 infants; data not pooled; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adiposity as fat mass (MD -0.04 kg, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.04), and one study reported adiposity as percentage fat (MD -0.10%, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.99). We do not know the effect of probiotics on perinatal mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 3 studies, 709 infants; low-certainty evidence), a composite measure of neonatal morbidity (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35; 2 studies, 623 infants; low-certainty evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (mean RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.92; 2 studies, 586 infants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on perineal trauma, postnatal depression, maternal and infant development of diabetes or neurosensory disability.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from six trials has not clearly identified the effect of probiotics on the risk of GDM. However, high-certainty evidence suggests there is an increased risk of pre-eclampsia with probiotic administration. There were no other clear differences between probiotics and placebo among the other primary outcomes. The certainty of evidence for this review's primary outcomes ranged from low to high, with downgrading due to concerns about substantial heterogeneity between studies, wide CIs and low event rates. Given the risk of harm and little observed benefit, we urge caution in using probiotics during pregnancy. The apparent effect of probiotics on pre-eclampsia warrants particular consideration. Eight studies are currently ongoing, and we suggest that these studies take particular care in follow-up and examination of the effect on pre-eclampsia and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. In addition, the underlying potential physiology of the relationship between probiotics and pre-eclampsia risk should be considered.
Topics: Bias; Cesarean Section; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Humans; Obesity; Overweight; Placebos; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33870484
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009951.pub3 -
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2022Modifications in the microbiota caused by environmental and genetic reasons can unbalance the intestinal homeostasis, deregulating the host's metabolism and immune... (Review)
Review
Modifications in the microbiota caused by environmental and genetic reasons can unbalance the intestinal homeostasis, deregulating the host's metabolism and immune system, intensifying the risk factors for the development and aggravation of non-alcoholic fat liver disease (NAFLD). The use of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics have been considered a potential and promising strategy to regulate the gut microbiota and produce beneficial effects in patients with liver conditions. For this reason, this review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of probiotics, prebiotics, and symbiotics in patients with NAFLD and NASH. Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted, and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines were followed. The clinical trials used in this study demonstrated that gut microbiota interventions could improve a wide range of markers of inflammation, glycemia, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, obesity, liver injury (decrease of hepatic enzymes and steatosis and fibrosis). Although microbiota modulators do not play a healing role, they can work as an important adjunct therapy in pathological processes involving NAFLD and its spectrums, either by improving the intestinal barrier or by preventing the formation of toxic metabolites for the liver or by acting on the immune system.
Topics: Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Liver; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics
PubMed: 35955942
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158805 -
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN Dec 2022Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) symptoms include pharmaceutical, surgical, dietary, and lifestyle behaviors; however, dietary interventions lack... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
What is the efficacy of dietary, nutraceutical, and probiotic interventions for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) symptoms include pharmaceutical, surgical, dietary, and lifestyle behaviors; however, dietary interventions lack evidence synthesis.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What is the effect of dietary, probiotic, and nutraceutical interventions on GERD symptoms, with or without pharmaceutical therapy, in adults with a history of GERD or functional dyspepsia compared to no intervention, placebo, or usual care?
METHOD
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA. The search strategy was implemented in MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Embase on the 28th October 2020 and updated to 27th July 2021. Intervention studies were eligible if they evaluated the effect of a dietary, nutraceutical, or probiotic intervention on GERD symptoms in adults with a history of GERD or functional dyspepsia. The internal validity of studies was assessed using the Academy Quality Criteria Checklist; Review Manager software was used to perform meta-analysis; and certainty in the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS
6,608 study records were retrieved from the search, with 21 studies (n = 24 highly heterogenous intervention groups) included (n = 10 restrictive dietary interventions; n = 3 non-restrictive dietary interventions; n = 8 nutraceutical interventions; and n = 3 probiotic interventions). GERD symptoms were clinically and statistically improved by a test-based elimination diet (n = 1 study), low nickel diet (n = 1 study), probiotic yoghurt (n = 1 study), psyllium husk (n = 1 study), prickly pear and olive leaf extract supplement (n = 1 study), and melatonin, amino acid and b-group vitamin supplement (n = 1 study) according to qualitative synthesis. Ginger-containing supplements could be meta-analyzed, and improved incidence of GERD symptom alleviation (n = 2 studies, OR: 7.50 [95%CI: 3.62-15.54], GRADE: high). No clinically and/or statistically significant effects were found for the remaining n = 16 highly heterogenous interventions.
CONCLUSION
Evidence to guide the dietary management of GERD symptoms is limited in scope, quality, and feasibility. Based on the limited evidence available, dietary GERD management should be long-term, individualized, and consider both dietary restrictions and/or additions.
PROSPERO ID
CRD42021224082.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dyspepsia; Probiotics; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Dietary Supplements; Diet; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 36513474
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2022.09.015 -
Nutrients Oct 2021Intestinal microbiota has been shown to be a potential determining factor in the development of obesity. The objective of this systematic review is to collect and learn,...
Intestinal microbiota has been shown to be a potential determining factor in the development of obesity. The objective of this systematic review is to collect and learn, based on the latest available evidence, the effect of the use of probiotics and synbiotics in randomized clinical trials on weight loss in people with overweight and obesity. A search for articles was carried out in PubMed, Web of science and Scopus until September 2021, using search strategies that included the terms "obesity", "overweight", "probiotic", "synbiotic", "", "" and "weight loss". Of the 185 articles found, only 27 complied with the selection criteria and were analyzed in the review, of which 23 observed positive effects on weight loss. The intake of probiotics or synbiotics could lead to significant weight reductions, either maintaining habitual lifestyle habits or in combination with energy restriction and/or increased physical activity for an average of 12 weeks. Specific strains belonging to the genus and were the most used and those that showed the best results in reducing body weight. Both probiotics and synbiotics have the potential to help in weight loss in overweight and obese populations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Obesity; Overweight; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Synbiotics; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss; Young Adult
PubMed: 34684633
DOI: 10.3390/nu13103627 -
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 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022To evaluate Safety and efficacy of probiotic supplementation in inflammatory arthritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate Safety and efficacy of probiotic supplementation in inflammatory arthritis.
METHODS
The literature on the treatment of inflammatory arthritis with probiotics has been collected in databases such as CNKI, Pubmed, Cochrane library, Embase, etc. The search time is for them to build the database until May 2022. The included literatures are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics in the treatment of hyperuricemia and gout. The Cochrane risk assessment tool was used for quality evaluation, and the Rev Man5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 37 records were finally included, involving 34 RCTs and 8 types of autoimmune disease (Hyperuricemia and gout, Inflammatory bowel disease arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis [JIA], Osteoarthritis [OA], Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, Psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Spondyloarthritis). RA involved 10 RCTs (632 participants) whose results showed that probiotic intervention reduced CRP. Psoriasis involved 4 RCTs (214 participants) whose results showed that probiotic intervention could reduce PASI scores. Spondyloarthritis involved 2 RCTs (197 participants) whose results showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. Osteoporosis and Ostepenia involving 10 RCTs (1156 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved bone mineral density in patients. Hyperuricemia and gout involving 4 RCTs (294 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved serum uric acid in patients. OA involving 1 RCTs (433 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. JIA involving 2 RCTs (72 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. Inflammatory bowel disease arthritis involving 1 RCTs (120 participants) showed that probiotic intervention improved symptoms in patients. All of the above RCTs showed that probiotics did not increase the incidence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Probiotic supplements may improve Hyperuricemia and gout, Inflammatory bowel disease arthritis, JIA, OA, Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, Psoriasis, RA, Spondyloarthritis. However, more randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to determine the efficacy and optimal dosing design of probiotics.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021286425, identifier CRD42021286425.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Chronic Disease; Dietary Supplements; Gout; Humans; Hyperuricemia; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Osteoporosis; Probiotics; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylarthritis; Uric Acid
PubMed: 36217542
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.961325 -
Journal of Alternative and... Feb 2021Broad-spectrum antibiotics are the first-line treatment for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). However, many antibiotics have a considerable side-effect...
Broad-spectrum antibiotics are the first-line treatment for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). However, many antibiotics have a considerable side-effect profile and SIBO commonly reoccurs after successful eradication with antibiotics. Alternative therapies such as probiotics, therapeutic diets, and herbal medicines have been used to individualize SIBO management, particularly in recalcitrant cases. The objective of this review is to evaluate the role of alternative therapies in SIBO treatment. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register were systematically searched for clinical studies evaluating alternative therapies in the management of SIBO. Human studies in which an alternative intervention was used to treat SIBO were included. Alternative interventions were defined as an intervention that included a probiotic supplement, herbal preparation, or a dietary change. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized clinical trials with or without a control, and crossover studies were included. The following information was extracted from the selected studies: study type, study participants, SIBO subtype, intervention, comparison, outcome measures, relevant results, relevant side effects, and Jadad score. Eight studies met inclusion criteria. The studies evaluated probiotics ( = 5), therapeutic diet ( = 1), and herbal medicines ( = 2). Among these studies, there were four RCTs, two open-label single-arm studies, one randomized, double-blind crossover study, and one two-arm open-label study with crossover. Main results are summarized. There may be studies not captured by the defined search criteria. Additionally, studies used different methodologies in both breath testing and measurement of clinical symptoms, making it difficult to draw conclusions on SIBO eradication and symptom improvement across studies. Our findings suggest preliminary evidence for a role of alternative therapies in the treatment of SIBO. However, robust clinical trials are generally lacking. Existing studies tend to be small and lack standardized formulations of treatment. Breath testing protocols and clinical symptom measurement greatly varied between studies. Large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the best way to utilize alternative therapies in the treatment of SIBO.
Topics: Blind Loop Syndrome; Diet Therapy; Humans; Phytotherapy; Probiotics
PubMed: 33074705
DOI: 10.1089/acm.2020.0275 -
Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) Feb 2024This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that employed probiotics and symbiotics for treating infantile colic. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that employed probiotics and symbiotics for treating infantile colic.
METHODS
We performed electronic systematic literature searches in Embase, PubMed and Web of Science, to identify articles published between 1950 and April 2023. Only RCT involving infants with infantile colic under 3 months were included. The treatment plan comprised 15 probiotics, which included Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 and Bifidobacterium animalis lactis BB-12. The probiotics were administered alone or in combination with a prebiotic, vs. no intervention or a placebo.
RESULTS
Probiotics resulted in an average reduction of 51 min of crying per day (p = 0.001). Further analysis of subgroups showed that the reduction was -39.30 min for vaginal delivery (p = 0.003), -64.66 min for Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 (p = 0.03), -40.45 min for other strains (p < 0.00001), -74.28 min for exclusively breastfed infants (p = 0.0003) and -48.04 min for mixed feeding (p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
All probiotic strains seem effective in treating infantile colic. Exclusively breastfed infants have demonstrated more significant reduction in crying time. However, the available evidence on the effectiveness of probiotics in formula-fed and caesarean-born infants is limited.
Topics: Infant; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Colic; Breast Feeding; Probiotics; Emotions; Prebiotics; Limosilactobacillus reuteri
PubMed: 37962097
DOI: 10.1111/apa.17036 -
Nutrients Mar 2023Many studies have explored the efficacy of probiotics on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children, but there is no consensus on the curative effect. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Many studies have explored the efficacy of probiotics on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children, but there is no consensus on the curative effect. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively investigate whether probiotics could improve behavioral symptoms in children with ASD. A systematic database search was conducted and a total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. We found a nonsignificant overall effect size of probiotics on behavioral symptoms in children with ASD (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.60 to 0.11, = 0.18). However, a significant overall effect size was found in the subgroup of the probiotic blend (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI: -0.83 to -0.02, = 0.04). Additionally, these studies provided limited evidence for the efficacy of probiotics due to their small sample sizes, a shorter intervention duration, different probiotics used, different scales used, and poor research quality. Thus, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled studies following strict trial guidelines are needed to precisely demonstrate the therapeutic effects of probiotics on ASD in children.
Topics: Humans; Child; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36986145
DOI: 10.3390/nu15061415